logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.11.07 2013노1658
도박
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that G is a witness as to the facts charged against the defendant, and thus the police interrogation protocol of G constitutes the protocol of statement as provided by Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Although the court below should have judged the admissibility of the protocol of interrogation of the police officer as to G based on the application of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles which rejected the protocol of interrogation of the police officer as it constitutes the protocol of interrogation of the suspect as provided by Article 3

2. On the other hand, Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies not only to the case where the interrogation protocol of the accused prepared by investigation agency other than the public prosecutor is used as evidence of guilt, but also to the case where the interrogation protocol of the accused or the suspect prepared by investigation agency other than the public prosecutor, or the interrogation protocol of the suspect as to the accused is adopted as evidence of guilt against the accused. The interrogation protocol of the suspect prepared by investigation agency other than the public prosecutor for the accused or the accomplice in relation with the accused or accomplice in relation with the accused or the suspect in relation to the accused is acknowledged as evidence of guilt by the suspect's court statement, the admissibility of evidence is denied if the accused denies the contents of the protocol on the trial date. As a result, Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is a provision that exceptionally recognizes admissibility, does not apply to the interrogation protocol of the suspect as a result of such a natural circumstance, when it is impossible to make a statement in the court due to

In this case, evidence corresponding to the facts charged against the defendant is merely the suspect interrogation protocol of G, and the suspect interrogation protocol of G is the suspect interrogation protocol of co-suspect.

arrow