logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2014.06.12 2012도1293
부정처사후수뢰등
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

The establishment of facts constituting a crime in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have such convictions as to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such convictions may lead to such convictions, the determination ought to be made in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilts, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense is contradictory or unreasonable.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). Meanwhile, in a case where the Defendant, who was designated as the underwriter in the course of bribery, denies the fact of the acceptance of the bribe, and there is no evidence to support the fact, there is a need for the admissibility of evidence of the statement made by the accepter, and there is credibility to exclude a reasonable doubt.

In determining credibility, it is also necessary to also examine whether there is a possibility that the content of the statement itself is reasonable, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after, as well as his human beings, and whether there is an interest in the statement, especially in the case where there is a suspicion of a crime against him, and there is a possibility that an investigation may be initiated or an investigation is being conducted on the suspect, and if there is no possibility that the admissibility of the statement does not reach the extent that the admissibility of the statement is denied, there is a suspicion of intimidation, hearing, etc. using it, thereby affecting the statement.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2078, Feb. 15, 2008). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, believed the relevant premise, such as the grounds for not being able to offer a bribe to Defendant A.

arrow