logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2013.12.19 2013노1807
대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반
Text

All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that F is a witness at the trial date of the court below, and the prosecutor confirmed whether F made the true statement and made the statement as stated by F in the investigation agency, and asked questions as to whether F made its signature and affixed it. Thus, F is deemed to have recognized the authenticity of the establishment of the above statement. However, the court below rejected the admissibility of the above statement by deeming F to have denied the authenticity of the above statement.

The police officer who investigated the Defendants and F made a statement that the Defendants led to the confession of a crime at the time of the lower court’s trial. The police interrogation protocol of the Defendants against the Defendants was prepared in accordance with the specific procedures and legal methods. While recognizing that the Defendants’ statements at the police station were made under particularly reliable circumstances, the lower court rejected the admissibility of evidence on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants led to the confession of a crime in the presence of H in the statement at the lower court was made under particularly reliable circumstances.

In addition, although the F’s answer attitude or the overall atmosphere of H’s investigation could not be seen as its content, the lower court rejected the admissibility of H’s statement en bloc.

As such, the police statement of F and H’s statement in the original court’s court room are admissible, and in full view of F’s account records, the Defendants are able to engage in credit business without registration and receive interest from F in violation of the restriction on the interest rate, but the court below acquitted the Defendants on the facts charged of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination.

arrow