beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.
Reasons
1. Although the Defendant did not deliver a philophone to F, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal ex officio, Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies not only to cases where an investigative agency other than the public prosecutor makes an interrogation protocol of the accused prepared as evidence of guilt, but also to cases where the interrogation protocol of the accused or the accused prepared by the investigative agency other than the public prosecutor is adopted as evidence of guilt against the accused or the accused.
Therefore, even if the protocol of interrogation prepared by investigation agency other than the prosecutor for another suspect who has co-related relation with the defendant, such protocol of interrogation as a suspect's legal statement is acknowledged, and satisfies the requirements of Article 312 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it cannot be used as evidence of guilt unless the defendant denies the contents of protocol on the trial date.
(2) In light of the records of this case, since the defendant denied the contents of the F's suspect interrogation protocol (No. 14,15) in relation to the accomplice, each of the above F's suspect interrogation protocol was inadmissible as evidence, but the court below held that each of the above police suspect interrogation protocol was admissible as evidence. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on admissibility of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.
B. The lower court duly adopted and investigated the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts.