beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal not timely filed).
According to Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, a protocol of interrogation of a suspect prepared by an investigative agency other than a prosecutor is prepared in accordance with legitimate procedures and methods, and may be admitted as evidence only when the present or former criminal suspect or his/her defense counsel recognizes the contents at a preparatory hearing or a public trial.
According to the records, the part of the defendant's statement in the second interrogation protocol against the defendant prepared by the judicial police officer on July 27, 2018 is inadmissible, since the defendant denied its contents on the second trial date of the first trial and was not adopted as evidence, it is not admissible as evidence.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the above statement was used as evidence on the premise that it is admissible as evidence.
However, the remaining evidence cited by the first instance court maintained by the lower court is sufficient to find the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and such erroneous judgment of the lower court does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.
In addition, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in its judgment, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent to commit a crime of violating Article 12(2) of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 16870, Jan. 23, 2020) and the Housing Act.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.