Whether the illegality does not affect the judgment in a case where the evidence without admissibility was adopted as evidence of guilt but criminal facts can be found based on other evidence presented by the court.

Although the court below's decision contains an error of law that adopted the suspect examination protocol of the defendant prepared by the investigation agency as evidence of guilt even though it has no admissibility of evidence, if the facts of crime can be acknowledged by other evidence cited by the court below, such illegality does not affect the judgment.

Article 361-5 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and three others

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (73 Gohap907)

The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

Each of the days of detention pending trial after appeal shall be included in the sentence of the original instance against the Defendants, one hundred days each, respectively.

The summary of the defendants' grounds for appeal is as follows: First, although the court below used each interrogation protocol of the defendant as evidence of guilt as evidence against the defendant prepared by the U.S. investigative agency, it is not admissible as evidence since the defendant's defense counsel did not consent to the admissibility of evidence in the court below; second, the court below erred by misapprehending the law on admissibility of evidence; second, the defendant 2 did not participate in the robbery and the crime of violation of the Narcotics Act; second, there is no evidence to acknowledge that about 9 kys, who were delivered by the victim from the non-indicted 1 and 33 years of age were narcotics; and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the drugs of the defendant 1 and 33 years of age were kys as narcotics; and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendants conspired to take narcotics, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant 1 purchased 3 kys, the kys, which the victim is the non-indicted 1, and thus, it does not affect the judgment of the court below that the defendant 3's own self-defense could not affect the judgment.

Therefore, even if the court below's admission of each interrogation protocol against the defendants prepared by the U.S. investigative agency as evidence of guilt has no admissibility of evidence, in light of the records, since the above illegality is not an error affecting the judgment, the above argument is not acceptable, and the second and third points of the appeal are examined in light of the records, and it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant's act of delivery of the defendant 3 is a robbery for the purpose of forcibly taking narcotics and violation of the Narcotics Act. Further, even if the records of the case are examined in detail, it is not possible to find any illegality as alleged in the court below in the facts-finding process. Thus, the above argument can not be accepted, and the second and third points of the appeal are examined in light of the records.

Therefore, according to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each appeal filed by the Defendants shall be dismissed, and two hundred days each of the detention days in the trial under Article 57 of the Criminal Act shall be included in the sentence of the original trial against the Defendants.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judge Lee Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)