The case holding that a statement made by a person other than a suspect in the police was not made under particularly reliable circumstances;

In preparing the protocol of statement, the judicial police officer has made a false statement of the personal information, such as the resident registration certificate, etc., and without closely comparing the necessary data, the name, permanent domicile, dwelling place, workplace, dwelling place, and each telephone number of the workplace, etc., which the person who made the statement stated according to the following documents. If it is impossible to confirm the identity and location of the person who made the statement, it cannot be deemed that the statement was made under a particularly reliable condition, in addition to the situation in which the defendant and the

Article 314 proviso of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (84 High Court Decision 2655)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent.

The gist of the defendant's grounds for appeal is that the court below committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts by collecting evidences even though the defendant did not commit the theft of this case. Therefore, the court below's conviction evidence of this case, which corresponds to the facts in the court below's decision, the witness's statement in compliance with the facts in the court below's decision, the statement in the prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the defendant in the prosecutor's protocol, the statement in compliance with the facts in the prosecutor's protocol, the statement in the prosecutor's protocol against non-indicted 2 in the prosecutor's protocol, the statement in compliance with the facts in the court's decision, and the statement in the prosecutor's protocol against non-indicted 3 in the prosecutor's protocol, except the statement in the non-indicted 3's protocol of statement in the judicial police officer's disposition, and there is no statement or statement in the contents that can be evidence of guilt and there is a statement in support of the facts charged. However, the court below acknowledged it as admissibility pursuant to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, even if Nonindicted Party 1’s testimony and investigation report (No. 61, 34 investigation records) were prepared by Nonindicted Party 3 at the lower court’s trial court, Nonindicted Party 3’s seat, and Nonindicted Party 4’s investigation report (No. 45, and 46) were written on Nonindicted Party 3’s witness statement, the judicial police officer prepared his own name, permanent address, place of residence, and telephone number of the Defendant’s work place, according to the following documents: (a) Nonindicted Party 3’s statement was written on his own, and Nonindicted Party 3’s seat and whereabouts were unknown at the police station’s seat; and (b) Nonindicted Party 3’s statement was not found to have arrived at the police station’s seat, and thus, it was impossible for the Defendant to have appeared and make a statement at the lower court, taking into account the following circumstances: (c) Nonindicted Party 3’s statement that was written by Nonindicted Party 4 at the police station’s seat; and (d) Nonindicted Party 2’s statement that was written on his own seat.

Nevertheless, the court below accepted the statement of the non-indicted 3 as evidence, and found the defendant guilty of this case by collecting various evidences in its ruling, and it cannot be said that the court below erred that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact by misunderstanding the above evidence. Thus, the defendant's appeal is justified.

Therefore, a party member shall reverse the judgment of the court below in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

The summary of the facts charged of this case is that "the defendant, around 23:00 on April 12, 1984, was stolen by taking 65,00 won of the body of the victim non-indicted 3, who was located adjacent to the city bus located adjacent to the city bus No. 142 on the left-hand side of the victim non-indicted 3, who was living adjacent to the city bus located adjacent to Yongsan-gu Seoul Station, Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul." However, the defendant denied the body of the police to the court of the first instance, and the statement of the non-indicted 3 prepared by a judicial police officer dealing with the above facts charged cannot be admitted as evidence because it cannot be admitted as evidence because it cannot be admitted as evidence (if it is possible to recognize the admissibility of evidence, it is not believed by the party member) since it constitutes evidence of the witness, non-indicted 1, 22 or no evidence of the first instance court's conviction from each of the above facts charged of this case, and it cannot be found that there is no evidence of the prosecutor's evidence.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Young-il (Presiding Judge)