A. Whether a judicial police officer’s right to make a statement (affirmative)

(b) Where there is no seal affixed to the statement at the end of the statement, it is recognized that the protocol is authentic;

A. The protocol of statement prepared by the judicial police assistant is a document prepared by the judicial police assistant under the direction of the prosecutor under Article 196(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 2 of the Judicial Police Officers Act and Article 6 of the Police Officers Act and Article 3 of the Police Officers Act, so it cannot be called a protocol prepared by an unauthorized person.

B. Even if there is no seal affixed to the signature side of the statement column at the end of the statement statement, and it is not clear that the signature of the statement column is his own writing, the forgery is a simple omission, in light of the circumstances such as the seal affixed to the person who made the statement, and the seal affixed thereto is deemed identical to the seal affixed to the provisional return of the seized article and the receipt of the seized article, and the above investigation is deemed true.

Articles 196, 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Articles 2 and 14 of the Judicial Police Officers Act

Defendant

Attorney Park Young-young (National Ship)

Daegu High Court Decision 81No1376,81No257 delivered on December 11, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The twenty-five days, out of the number of days pending trial after the appeal, shall be included in the principal sentence.

First, we examine the defendant's grounds for appeal.

The issue of whether the whole or part of the days of pre-trial detention should be included in the principal sentence as a matter of course, unless the number of days of pre-trial detention should be counted as a matter of course, belongs to the discretion of the court of judgment except Article 24 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, in this case, it is evident that only the defendant appealed, the court below's judgment does not err by including only 30 days out of 72 days of detention before the judgment was rendered as a matter of course in the principal sentence, since the remaining days of pre-trial detention should not be included in the principal sentence. Thus, it is not reasonable

Next, the defendant's defense counsel's grounds for appeal are examined.

According to the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, even if the statement of the Kim Jong-soo prepared by the senior judicial police officer, the above protocol is a document prepared to assist in investigation under the direction of the prosecutor, etc. under Article 196 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 6 of the Police Officers Act, Article 3 of the Police Officers Act, and Article 3 of the above protocol is a document prepared by the assistant judicial police officer to assist in investigation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the signature of the person who made the statement at the end of the above protocol is a signature or seal without authority. Even if it is not clear on the record that the signature of the person who made the statement was written at the end of the above ruling, the above protocol is also a simple statement that the above protocol was signed by the person who made the statement, and since the seal affixed to the above protocol was bound by the investigation records and thus, it cannot be seen that the defendant's signature or seal affixed to the above protocol was not admissible as evidence. Therefore, the above ruling of the court below is not admissible as evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jung-tae (Presiding Justice)