The case rejecting the statement of the principal offender who instigated the defendant to commit the crime and the testimony of the witness who was specialized from the principal offender is not reliable.

If a principal offender’s statement that the Defendant instigated to commit a crime is inconsistent with the police, the prosecution, and the court, and some statements conflict with the testimony of other witnesses, it is difficult to believe that it is easy to believe it, and as long as it is not reliable, the witness’s testimony or statement in the investigative agency that he/she was aware of it, is also difficult to believe it.

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (67Da2893)

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the prosecutor's appeal is that the court below rejected the non-indicted 1's statement consistent with the facts charged without credibility and rendered a verdict of innocence against the defendant.

1. Non-Indicted 1 made a statement to the police that he instigated a female to kill Non-Indicted 2 until the court of second instance rendered a judgment. However, he only made a statement that he was before and after the defendant's participation, the circumstances and degree of his involvement. If the defendant did not have any relation to the crime of this case, there is no reason such as inducing the defendant to kill her husband until her husband's death.

2. Since the crime of this case occurred in the state of customs duty, there is a possibility of collusion between the parties, and there is little possibility that Non-Indicted 1 took full charge of the expenses for the happiness of the two male and female, and that the defendant borrowed 100,000 won from Non-Indicted 1 at the time, the defendant is presumed to be a poor state, and the defendant is presumed to be able to appropriate the retirement allowance for the expenses for the happiness of the two male and female if Non-Indicted 2, who was in office as a member of the office of Honam Fertilizer, died, and there is clear motive for the defendant to participate in the crime, in light of the fact

3. The method of killing is the most intelligent and planned, and it is difficult to see it as the sole criminal conduct of Nonindicted Party 1, who is an intangible woman;

4. After committing the crime, Non-Indicted 1 had a friendship with the Defendant and correspondence. If the Defendant did not participate in the crime, the two male and female after committing the crime will continue to communicate; and

5. Even when the defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment which can be legally imposed as a crime of adultery, considering all the circumstances such as the point where the waiver of the right to appeal became final and conclusive by waiver of the right to appeal, the statement by Nonindicted Party 1 is reliable, and therefore, even though the facts charged against the defendant can be sufficiently recognized by the statement by Nonindicted Party 1, the court below rejected the statement by Nonindicted Party 1 and rendered a verdict of innocence, and affected the judgment.

Therefore, upon examining the evidence to support the charged facts of this case based on the records, the statement at the police and the prosecution of Non-Indicted 1.

According to the record of Nonindicted Party 1’s trial (Seoul District Court 6Da499), Nonindicted Party 1’s statement at the court of first and second instance, and Nonindicted Party 3’s statement and statement at an investigative agency, which are hearsay evidence, may be heard. Meanwhile, the Defendant denies the type of crime, and Nonindicted Party 1’s statement at the Daejeon Prison, which was sentenced to imprisonment for life and died on November 14, 1968 (section 74 of the trial record), it is impossible to conduct an investigation of the Defendant’s testimony at the court of first and second trials, and it is difficult to view that Nonindicted Party 1’s testimony was non-indicted 1’s testimony at the court of first and second trials, which was non-indicted 4, and that Nonindicted Party 1’s testimony was non-indicted 2, who was non-indicted 1’s husband, and that it was non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 1’s testimony at the court of first and second trials, and thus, it was hard to find out the Defendant’s statement that it was non-indicted 2’s testimony.

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Noh Byung-man (Presiding Judge)