[1] Requirements for using the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the judicial police assistant who has no admissibility of evidence as impeachment evidence by denying the contents of the defendant, and the method of applying for examination of impeachment evidence

[2] The case holding that the above suspect interrogation protocol may be used as impeachment evidence for the defendant's statement in light of the circumstances, such as the fact that although the defendant did not state the purpose of proof as impeachment evidence at the time of submission of the first evidence, it can be seen that most of the examination procedure as impeachment evidence for the defendant's court testimony was conducted, since the defendant's interrogation protocol of suspect interrogation prepared

[1] The protocol of interrogation of the accused prepared by the prosecutor as evidence of guilt is admissible as long as the accused denies its contents. However, unless there is any circumstance to suspect that it is not arbitrarily prepared, the impeachment evidence may be used as an opposite evidence for the impeachment of the accused's statement in the court, and it is clear pursuant to the provisions of Article 318-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act that it is not necessary to undergo strict evidence examination because it is not a evidence to acknowledge criminal facts, but it is necessary to examine evidence as impeachment evidence in the court. Meanwhile, in light of the purpose of Article 132 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure as to the method of application for evidence, the submission of impeachment evidence must give the other party an opportunity to take measures for attack and defense in advance, so it is necessary to clearly state in advance the relation to the facts to be proved, the purport of proof, etc., so that it is necessary to inform the other party of the intention to challenge any part of the statement by

[2] The case holding that the above suspect interrogation protocol may be used as impeachment evidence for the defendant's statement in light of the circumstances, including the fact that although the defendant did not clearly state the purpose of proof as impeachment evidence at the time of submission of the first evidence, it can be seen that most of the examination procedure as impeachment evidence for the defendant's statement was conducted as impeachment evidence for the defendant's oral statement

[1] Article 318-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 132 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure / [2] Article 318-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Do133 delivered on January 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 833), Supreme Court Decision 97Do1770 delivered on February 27, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 954 delivered on September 8, 1998)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Cheongju District Court Decision 2004No1535 delivered on April 8, 2005

The appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant on the grounds that it is difficult to believe that the statement in the police of the victim non-indicted 1 and in the court of first instance consistent with the facts charged, and the statement in the medical certificate of non-indicted 1 and in the court of first instance of the court of first instance, which are sufficient to recognize the facts charged. In light of the records, the fact-finding and the judgment of the court of first instance are just and there is no violation of the law

2. The protocol of interrogation of the accused prepared by the prosecutor as evidence of guilt is admissible as long as the accused denies its contents. However, unless there is any circumstance to suspect that it is not arbitrarily prepared, it may be used as opposing evidence for the impeachment of the accused's statement in the court, and it is clear pursuant to Article 318-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act that impeachment evidence does not require strict evidence examination. However, it is necessary to examine evidence as impeachment evidence in court (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Do1333, Jan. 26, 1996; 97Do1770, Feb. 27, 1998, etc.). Meanwhile, in light of the purpose of Article 132(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure as to the method of application for examination of evidence, in submitting impeachment evidence, it is necessary to give the other party an opportunity to consider means of attack and defense in advance, and thus, it is necessary to inform the other party of any part of the evidence in advance.

According to the records, the prosecutor submitted the suspect examination protocol of the defendant as evidence of guilt to the court police assistant, and the defendant's establishment and voluntariness was recognized, but the contents were denied and the admissibility was denied. The prosecutor stated the same purport in the statement of reasons for appeal as stated in the court of first instance, although the above suspect examination protocol was not presented at the time of the submission of evidence or thereafter at the time of the submission of evidence, the prosecutor stated the same purport in the statement of reasons for appeal. However, although there was no evidence examination as impeachment evidence in the court, it is not necessary to undergo a strict evidence examination since impeachment evidence was not proven as impeachment evidence, since it was not produced as impeachment evidence, it was produced at the court, but it was produced after the examination of evidence as impeachment evidence was submitted at the court, and the examination procedure as impeachment evidence of the above suspect examination protocol as impeachment evidence is eventually conducted by the prosecutor, and it is possible to view that the above procedure was conducted by the court of first instance until the court below.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below clearly stated that the above interrogation protocol of suspect interrogation is to be used as impeachment evidence for the defendant's testimony in principle, and it should be examined as impeachment evidence in the court. The prosecutor submitted the above interrogation protocol of suspect interrogation as evidence during the first trial of the court of first instance, but it did not clearly indicate that it would be for the impeachment of the defendant's statement in the court due to the purpose of proof, and there was no evidence examination as impeachment evidence in the court. Thus, the above interrogation protocol of suspect interrogation cannot be used as impeachment evidence for the defendant's statement. As examined earlier, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to admissibility of impeachment evidence or its examination method.

However, even if the above interrogation protocol can be used as impeachment evidence for the defendant's statement in court, it cannot be deemed that the probative value of the defendant's statement denying the facts charged has been reduced, and unless there is evidence to acknowledge the facts charged as stated in paragraph (1), such mistake does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and it cannot be viewed as an error of law that constitutes a ground for reversal of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out is without merit.

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

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)