The time when a request for the preservation of evidence may be made, and whether a request for the preservation of evidence is made with respect to matters pertaining to the interrogation of suspect.

The preservation of evidence pursuant to Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Act may not be requested before the defendant or the suspect is prosecuted, or may not be requested by the method of preservation of evidence.

Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Gwangju High Court Decision 78No440 delivered on March 8, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) The preservation of evidence under Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Act cannot be claimed before the defendant or suspect is a criminal case, and it is reasonable to conclude that matters falling under the interrogation of suspect can not be claimed by the method of preservation of evidence. According to the records of this case, the application for preservation of evidence is about the time when the co-defendant was a suspect, and if the contents of the examination are examined, it is stated that the same defendant was examined.

This means that the suspect was directly examined as a witness of the facts that he had voluntarily avoided, and the same accused is inadmissible, and even if the accomplice has made a statement on other accomplices among the contents of the examination, if the accomplices did not have any criminal record at the time of the examination, the validity of the preservation of evidence on the accomplices cannot be recognized. In this case, the judgment of the court below to the same effect is reasonable and there is no misapprehension of legal principles as to the preservation of evidence, since the court below legitimately admitted that the defendant was not the defendant at the time of the preservation of evidence.

Therefore, there is no reason to argue about this point.

(2) The reasoning of the lower court, which did not recognize the Defendant as guilty of the crime of uttering of an altered private document, is also acceptable, and there is no error against the rules of experience or logic.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reasonable, and the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)