(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.02.08 2017노175 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.02.08 2017노175

사기등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The list of misunderstanding evidence No. 51 is a CD in which the victim E made a copy of the file recording a conversation with K, and E made a statement that there exists the original file of the CD as a person who recorded the conversation at the time in the court of the court below, and that the CD was copied without an artificial opening of the original file, the above CD (or at least the part of the above CD recording) shall be admissible in accordance with Article 313(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, notwithstanding the Defendant’s consent.

However, the court below did not recognize the admissibility of the above CDs as evidence. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the rules of evidence.

B. On July 2014, the Defendant: (a) at the prosecutor’s office, the Defendant stated that he told E of the fact that he had expressed that he had delivered one speech by the O; (b) at the court of original judgment, he stated that he did not make the said speech; (c) the testimony of E and D, which correspond to the facts charged, is specific and consistent until the investigation agency and the court of original judgment, are more reliable; and (d) the content of some text messages sent by the Defendant to E during the crime period, correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, can be found guilty of the Defendant.

However, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by erroneous determination of facts.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding legal principles, electronic media such as a file recording the contents of a conversation does not have the signature or seal of an originator or statementer due to its nature, and if the contents are either the original recording of a conversation or a copy of the original recording, taking into account the risk of editing and manipulation by either the author’s intent or a specific technology, it shall be written in the course of duplication, such as editing.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.08.25 2016고합166

-서울서부지방법원 2021.02.18 2020노886

-대법원 2015.08.19 2015도2737

-청주지방법원 2015.04.16 2014노1258

-광주지방법원 2018.06.27 2018노1346