Cases where the admissibility of evidence of the examination protocol against the statements of inconsistent accomplices and the accomplices in the preparation of an assistant judicial police officer is limited;

The Defendant asserted that he did not appear at the present site until the prosecution and this court did not appear at the present site. However, the Defendant consistently asserted that there was only the fact that the Defendant was living in the present site, and denies the content of the protocol of interrogation of the senior judicial police officer prepared by the above defendants. In light of the testimony that the Defendant was not at the present site of the victim witness and the testimony that it is not clear whether the Defendant was at the present site of another victim witness, it is also difficult to believe the statement of the victims of the judicial police officer

Articles 308 and 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

The defendant is innocent.

The gist of the facts charged of this case is that it is difficult for the defendant to make a statement at the court below's 1, 2, 3 (the defendant's delivery to the victims) and 2, and it is hard for the defendant to make a statement at the court below's 18:30 on April 16, 1987 as well as the victim 1 (the age of 15) and 2 (the age of 14) to find it possible for the defendant to make a separate statement at the court below's 3, the defendant's joint prosecutor's office, and the defendant 2 to make a statement at the court below's 1, the defendant's 2, 3, and 1 as well as the defendant's statement at the court below's 2, it is hard for the court below to find that the defendant's joint prosecutor's statement at the court below's 1, 3, and 2, it is hard for the defendant to make a statement at the court below's 1, 3, and the defendant 2.

Judges Kim Jong-soo