The case holding that there is a violation of the rules of evidence adopted by a witness against the rule of experience.

With respect to the source of the money that the victim delivered to the defendant as the name of solicitation, the victim borrowed the money from the non-indicted (A), and some of them stated that he paid the above deposit money to the bank (A). In addition, if the victim did not lend the money to the above victim, and the bank did not receive the deposit money, the statement of the victim that he borrowed the money from the above (A) and delivered it to the defendant is inconsistent with the rule of experience.

Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (Law No. 2654 on December 20, 1973)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Jin-chul

Jeonju District Court Decision 84No90 delivered on May 16, 1984

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the judgment of the court below is the criminal facts of the defendant, and at around 11:00 on August 29, 1981, the defendant knew that the non-indicted 1 who lost the court of first instance was well aware of the fact that he had filed an appeal against the non-indicted 1, who had been filing a claim for ownership transfer registration against his own house 15 in the 50-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu-si-dong-gu-si-dong-si-dong-si-dong-dong-dong-si-dong-si-dong-si-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-

2. To review the relationship of evidence by the record; and

According to the testimony of the victim of the witness in the judgment of the court of first instance and the statement at the prosecutor's office of the same person, he delivered a sum of 1.5 million won to the defendant as stated in the above judgment at the time and place as stated in the above judgment, and the source of the money was borrowed from the non-indicted 2, who is the son, and 500,000 won out of the money was paid to the non-indicted 2's deposit at the interest point of the commercial bank, in concert with the non-indicted 2, and the testimony of the witness Park Jong-ok refers to the fact that the defendant

3. The defendant denies the receipt and payment of money from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and the witness non-indicted 2 (the defendant was in front of the defendant, and the victim's birth) testified that he did not lend money of 1.5 million won to the victim at the time of the above ruling at the court of first and second instances as well as that he did not receive deposit money at the bank branch. Furthermore, according to the records of non-indicted 2's copy of the savings deposit passbook at the bank interest branch in the 156, 15th trial record (the same content as the 63th page) before and after August 29, 191, it can be known that he did not pay 500,000 won from the deposit of non-indicted 2. If this is true, 500,000 won was delivered from non-indicted 2 to the defendant with the money borrowed from the non-indicted 1.5 million won as well as the testimony of the victim that he was paid from the commercial bank deposit in Korea.

In this regard, the court below should consider the credibility of the victim's testimony or statement after examining the existence of the original copy of the above deposit passbook and the authenticity of the contents thereof. However, the court below's decision that maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which sentenced the first instance to one punishment on the ground that the defendant's testimony and statement of the highest victim were committed in violation of the rules of evidence due to the incomplete hearing.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)