The case holding that it is insufficient to recognize the authenticity of the part of the Nonindicted Party’s statement in the suspect’s protocol.

Of the suspect examination records at the police, the part of the non-indictedO's statement in the interrogation records at the court of first instance is insufficient to acknowledge the authenticity of the statement by the fact that the person, as a witness in the court of first instance, reversed the prosecutor's statement in the above police and investigated by the police.

Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorneys Kim Jung-sik (Li)

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 79Do5254 delivered on October 25, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, among the facts charged in this case against the defendant, the defendant only led to confessions at the police and the prosecutor's office, and there is no evidence to prove that there is no evidence to support the defendant's confessions. This part of the facts charged is just and there is no evidence to prove that there is no evidence to support the defendant's confessions. Thus, the part of the facts charged in this part of the prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the defendant in the police's prosecutor's office in the prosecutor's office in the prosecutor's office in the court of first instance, when the defendant reversed the prosecutor's statement about the interrogation of the defendant in the prosecutor's office in the court of first instance and makes an investigation by the police, it is not sufficient to recognize the authenticity of the prosecutor's statement, but it is not sufficient to establish the authenticity, and even if the records are written, there is no evidence to prove the confession of the defendant's confessions. Thus, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the evidence law like the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)