[1] The admissibility of a recording tape and its verification protocol, in which a private person recorded the statements of a person other than the defendant

[2] The intent of the crime of false accusation

[1] The content of verification conducted by the Defendant’s school staff on a recording tape with the students’ knowledge of the fact that the Defendant made a student’s speech to praise and encourage North Korea during his private conversation with the students is merely the content of the recorded conversation attached to the inspection protocol, and thus, it is still the content of the recorded conversation. Among them, it is still the content of the recorded tape’s conversation. Since the contents of the above contents are different from those of the statement made by the Defendant other than the Defendant under Articles 311 and 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act, insofar as the Defendant did not agree that the recorded tape can be admitted as evidence, it should be acknowledged that the content of the recorded tape’s statement among the contents of the recorded tape’s statement by the students and the content of the student’s statement in the examination protocol as evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.

[2] In the crime of false accusation, the criminal intent is not necessarily required to be a conclusive intentional act, and it is also sufficient to dolusent intent. Therefore, the crime of false accusation is established by reporting the fact that the reporting person is not true, and it does not require conviction that the reported fact is false.

[1] Article 313(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 156 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 680 delivered on June 28, 1968, Supreme Court Decision 92Do682 delivered on June 23, 1992 (Gong1992, 2316), Supreme Court Decision 92Do682 delivered on June 23, 1992 (Gong1992, 2316), Supreme Court Decision 96Do1669 delivered on October 15, 196 (Gong196Ha, 3484) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 85Do220 delivered on April 9, 1985 (Gong1985, 768), Supreme Court Decision 86Do1259 delivered on August 19, 198 (Gong1986, 1978), Supreme Court Decision 98Do1969 delivered on June 16, 198 (Gong196, 1969)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor and Defendant

Attorney Park Jong-ok

Gwangju District Court Decision 96No65 delivered on August 23, 1996

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the prosecutor's ground of appeal on Defendant 1

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's testimony on September 198, 198 at the Women's Commercial High School and the Class 1 through 5 classes located in the first half of the second through the second grade, using electronic accounting class hours in which the defendant took charge of the defendant's affairs to praise and encourage the activities of anti-government organizations and join North Korea or its members, and thereby benefit anti-government organizations, the defendant's act constitutes an anti-government organization. In light of the records of the 20th trial of the first instance court, corresponding thereto, the first instance court's statement on the witness stuff in the evidence verification protocol, the name and person who prepared the prosecutor's report, the name and person who prepared the records of the first instance court's recording tape, the name and person who prepared the prosecutor's report, the second grade, the second grade, the second class, the second class, the second class, and the second class to the court below's decision that the defendant's testimony on the understanding, the records of the Kim Witness and the first instance, the first instance, the evidence and the facts charged, the defendant's testimony and the defendant.

B. First, we examine the admissibility of the recording tape and the above verification protocol submitted by the prosecutor to prove the above facts charged.

According to the records, the recording tape of this case contains a student's statement that the non-indicted 1, the teacher of the above school, collected a private conversation and divided it into a private conversation, which is a student, and the other party to the conversation knew. The contents of this conversation include a student's statement that the defendant made a statement to the same effect as the facts charged, and the first instance court stated the result of the verification conducted with respect to the recording tape of this case.

However, the contents of the above verification are merely the same as the contents of the recording on the recording tape of this case attached to the above verification protocol, and it still becomes the contents of the conversation recorded on the recording tape of this case. Among them, since the contents of the conversation of students do not differ from those of the defendant other than the defendant under Articles 311 and 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant did not agree that the recording tape of this case can be admitted as evidence, unless the defendant consented that the contents of the recording tape of this case can be admitted as evidence, among the contents of the recording tape's statement of the above students and the contents of the student's statement among the contents of the evidence verification protocol of this case, it should be recognized that the contents of each student's statement recorded on the recording tape of this case were recorded as evidence to acknowledge the facts charged pursuant to Article 313 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, since there is no evidence to support this point, the contents of the student's statement among the contents of the recording tape of this case and the contents of the student's statement in this case cannot be admitted as evidence.

In addition, in accordance with the part of the facts charged in this case, the court below's failure to believe the remaining evidence is justified, and there is no illegality of misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence as pointed out in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal are dismissed. It is not acceptable to accept all of the grounds of appeal.

2. As to Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal

In the crime of false accusation, the criminal intent is not necessarily required to be a conclusive intention, and it is sufficient to establish the crime of false accusation. Thus, the crime of false accusation is established by reporting the fact that the reporter is not true and that the reported fact is false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do324, May 10, 196). In light of the records of the evidence adopted by the judgment of the court of first instance, which the court of first instance cited by the judgment of the court below, the defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant prepares and submits a written accusation stating the false fact to the investigation agency without the consent of the defendant in the column of joint and several surety of the bank credit card entrance application as in the judgment of the court of first instance without the consent of the defendant, and thus, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty of the crime of false accusation of this case is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Although Defendant 2 filed an appeal against the entire judgment of the court below, Defendant 2 did not submit the appellate brief as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and the crime of interference with business, which the court below found guilty, within a legitimate period. Defendant 2 did not

4. Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal and Defendant 2's appeal are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)