Disapproval of defective evidence and propriety of judgment

The fact-finding based on evidence that has no admissibility of evidence can be recognized by any illegality or any other evidence based on the judgment, the illegality of the sea can not affect the judgment, and the assertion of illegality of the sea shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Defendant

post-Decree

Seoul District Court and Seoul High Court of the second instance

The final appeal is dismissed. 70 days out of the detention days before the judgment of the court is included in the original sentence.

The first instance court's judgment should be reversed because the witness's testimony was not erroneous or inconsistent with the rules of evidence in the first instance court's judgment. The first instance court's decision that the witness's witness's witness's first instance court's witness's witness's first instance court's witness's first instance court's first instance court's witness's first instance court's first instance court's second instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's second instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's second instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's second instance court's first instance court's second instance court's first instance court's first instance court's second instance court's first instance court's first instance court's second instance court's first instance court's second instance court's witness's second instance court's second instance court's first instance court's second instance court's witness's second instance court's second instance court's witness's second instance.

However, in full view of the evidence based on the original judgment, it is sufficient to recognize the original facts, and even if some of the exhibition evidence is defective as it is in violation of the rules of evidence as to the admissibility of evidence, such as the theory of novels, so long as it is possible to acknowledge the original facts by taking account of other evidence presented in the original judgment, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal since there is serious mistake of facts and it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, and since the testimony of Non-Indicted 4 is a statement based on the premise that he would harm the Chinese language, unless it is clear in light of the public influence before and after that witness's appearance, it cannot be considered as a sufficient deliberation due to non-indicted 4's failure to investigate whether it is harmful to the Chinese language of the witness, and there is no argument in the original judgment, such illegality as the theory of lawsuit cannot be recognized and there is no ground for appeal. A person is dismissed pursuant to Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal shall be included in the basic punishment of 70 days out of the detention days

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)