The protocol of suspect examination, protocol of witness statement, protocol of inspection, protocol of seizure, etc. prepared by the handling of affairs by judicial police officers may be used as evidence in cases where the accused recognizes the formation and contents thereof.

The records of suspect examination, records of statement of reference witness, records of inspection, records of seizure, etc. prepared by handling affairs of judicial police officers may be used as evidence in cases where the accused recognizes the formation and contents thereof.

Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Area of the first instance, Seoul High Court Decision 69No528 delivered on October 2, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The forty-five days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

First, the grounds of appeal by a state appointed defense counsel are as follows.

According to the judgment of the court of first instance supported by the court below, even if there are the suspect examination protocol, witness statement, inspection protocol, and seizure protocol prepared by the judicial police officer's handling of affairs as evidence of this case, such protocol is a document prepared by the judicial police officer under the direction of the prosecutor, etc. under Article 196 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 2 of the Judicial Police Officers Office Regulations based thereon, so it cannot be deemed a protocol prepared by a non-authorized person. Such protocol can be used as evidence in principle only when its contents or establishment are recognized in accordance with Articles 312, 313, and 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, it cannot be said that the defendant's human rights can be infringed upon by using it as evidence when the establishment and contents of this protocol are recognized by the defendant. Therefore, since the defendant acknowledged the establishment and contents of the protocol, the court of first instance admitted it as comprehensive evidence, the judgment of the court below supported the judgment of the court below that did not violate Article 10 of the Criminal Procedure Act or the evidence granting under the Constitution.

Next, Defendant’s grounds of appeal are examined as follows:

According to the records, the defendant is obviously minor as well as at the time when the judgment of the court below was rendered, and the defendant appeals against the imposition of sentence by citing the motive for the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and other home circumstances, but such assertion does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal. Therefore, the argument is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and 45 days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judges Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) Mag-gim Kim, Kim Jong-dae and Yang-Namng