The statement made without oath in the court of co-defendants in a different criminal facts shall not be admissible as evidence for the facts constituting the crime of the other accused.

The defendant is prosecuted for a separate crime, but the co-defendant is merely a witness's status in relation to the defendant, and thus, he cannot use his statement in one court as evidence to recognize the facts charged against the defendant unless he has taken an oath.

Articles 300, 311, and 156 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Attorney Park Song-chul

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 76No8774 delivered on March 22, 1978

The final appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by defense counsel are examined.

(A) As argued in this paper, each statement made by the prosecutor and the senior judicial police officer regarding the truth-finding of the witness has no merit that the person making the original statement has admitted the authenticity on the trial date, so it cannot be admissible as evidence. (B) The above defendant is clear in the record that the facts charged are different from those of the defendants, and thus, it cannot be admitted as evidence that the statement made by the defendant in the above defendant in the court cannot be admitted as evidence to acknowledge the facts charged with the defendant's offense. Thus, the above defendant cannot be admitted as evidence because the above defendant merely becomes the defendant in a concurrent trial, and it cannot be used as evidence as evidence for the relation to the defendant, which is obvious that he did not take an oath. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which admitted the admissibility of evidence in (a) and (b) cannot be admitted as evidence of guilt, but it cannot affect the conclusion of the judgment that the remaining evidence of the court below except the evidence in the above two cases can be admitted as the facts charged with the crime.

In addition, the fact-finding based on the rules of evidence and the rules of experience in the judgment of the court below, which means the fact-finding with the rules of evidence and the rules of experience, is returned to the

It is reasonable to see that the original judgment is correct, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)