beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine months.
1,500,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In the meantime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence against the Defendant, who did not go through the procedure to verify the contents of the protocol prepared by the investigator, and thereby making each protocol of interrogation of the suspect to the Defendant prepared by the prosecutor without admissibility of evidence.
B. In fact, the Defendant, on March 1, 2017, found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged, even though the rophone sold by F to J is not a rotophone, and thus, was unlawful.
(c)
The punishment (one hundred months of imprisonment, additional collection) sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Article 244(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The protocol on the interrogation of a suspect shall be made available to the suspect for inspection or read to him/her, and shall be made whether or not there is any omission in the statement or any omission in the statement, or any omission in the statement, and shall be described additionally in the protocol when the person under consideration raises an objection, or states an opinion, such as a request for increase, decrease, or change.
Article 312(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “A protocol in which a prosecutor makes a statement of a suspect who has become a defendant is admissible as evidence only when it is acknowledged by the defendant’s statement at a preparatory hearing or at a public trial date that the protocol was prepared in compliance with legitimate procedures and methods and that the same contents as the defendant stated are stated, and that the statement recorded in the protocol was made under particularly reliable circumstances.
"........"
2) The defendant was confirmed that when he was examined by the police, he was aware that he read the text in relation to the confirmation of the contents of the suspect interrogation protocol, and that he was the same as the investigator directly heard and stated.