logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2014.11.13 2014노655
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(공중밀집장소에서의추행)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant commits an indecent act against the victim;

The court below acknowledged admissibility of evidence even though the defendant did not agree to the written statement of the victim's male-child arrest F, and the F did not meet the requirements prescribed in Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by recognizing credibility of the victim's statement despite the absence of credibility.

2. Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "In cases under Article 312 or 313, where a person who requires a statement at a preparatory hearing or on a trial date is unable to make a statement because he/she has died, is ill, residing abroad, his/her whereabouts is unknown, or any other cause corresponding thereto exists, such protocol and other documents may be admitted as evidence: Provided, That it shall be limited to cases where it is proved that the statement or preparation was made under particularly reliable

According to the records of this case, since the police's statement of F constitutes "written statement in which a prosecutor or senior judicial police officer recorded a statement of a person other than the defendant" under Article 312 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is impossible for the original person who made a statement to make a statement due to death, illness, foreign residence, unknown whereabouts, or any other similar cause, and the statement made in a particularly reliable state is admissible.

In the lower court, the victim submitted the “written statement on the ground that the victim was unable to attend as a witness because he left the U.S. for employment.” Accordingly, the prosecution withdrawn the request for a witness to F. The lower court revoked the adoption of the witness, and the lower court did not adopt the written statement on F as evidence after the adoption of the witness.

In light of these circumstances, the requirements for recognizing the admissibility of the police's statement with F are satisfied.

arrow