2018Gohap682 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Refence, etc.)

A

Kim Sung-hun (prosecution) and friendly (public trial)

Attorney Kim beneficiary-young (National Election)

November 29, 2018

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of the facts charged

On January 1, 2017, the injured party B stated that "D and A shall pay 150,000 won to the roads near the C Station located in Ansan-si on December 10, 2016, and purchased 0.04 mphones from D and A several occasions on May 4, 2017, after being arrested by police officers in charge of the administration and possession of mephones (one philopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopon."

The Defendant, who is in de facto marital relationship with the Defendant, expressed his mind to threaten the victim to reverse D’s statement in order to prevent punishment. On May 19, 2017, at the Seoul detention center located in the city of P.M., the Defendant “B,” who is confined in the same room as the victim, will satise B’s additional statement about D’s punishment. If you do not satise B’s statement, it means that “B will kill all women’s relatives and their surroundings.” The Defendant continued to transfer the Defendant’s statement to the victim around that time. The Defendant, at the Seoul detention center of Seoul on May 19, 2017, she would not remove the victim from the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor to the extent that it would be easy for the victim to write off the victim’s statement from the Seoul detention center to the extent that it would be easy for the Defendant to write off the victim’s statement to the extent that it would have been sold to the Defendant. The Defendant would have set off the Defendant’s additional statement to D’s 10 months.

2. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel

A. On May 17, 2017, the fact that the Defendant met E in the atmosphere room for meeting Seoul detention center is recognized.

However, the defendant stated that "A is the person who is "B", and that "B is the person who is "B", and there is no fact that the defendant forces B to speak the content of intimidation, such as the facts charged.

B. On May 19, 2017, the Defendant recognized the fact that the victim was met at the investigative meeting room of the Seoul detention center. However, there is no other fact that the Defendant threatened the victim as stated in the facts charged. The Defendant completed meetings at the Seoul detention center on May 2017, and recognized the fact that the Defendant was drinking the victim for an election campaign. However, there is no fact that the Defendant threatened the victim as described in the facts charged.

3. Determination

There are letters prepared by the victim, the prosecutor's protocol for the victim, the witness G's legal statement, and the prosecutor's protocol for G, which correspond to the facts charged in this case, that the defendant threatened the victim with the intention to make a false statement concerning the case of selling D's phiphones.

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the record, the above statement evidence cannot be deemed to have been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant either was unable to believe that it is, or the evidence alone, was threatened with the victim as stated in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① With respect to intimidation on May 17, 2017, G stated to the effect that “I am before the prosecution,” “I am again before the victim and I am to keep the victim in addition through H consciousness unless I am the victim’s statement (the statement in the investigation record 4-45 pages, hereinafter referred to as “the investigation record”) was omitted. However, in this court, I am to reverse I am to the effect that I am to do so in order to do so, “I am to do so,” and I am to the effect that I am to do so, “I am to do so,” and I am to the effect that I am to do so in order to do so, I am to say that I am to do so, I am to the effect that I am to the effect that I am to do so, “I am to do so, I would like to am 4 years or more,” and that I am to say that I am to the effect that I am d'I am to do not have ever I ever. I am. I am. am............ I am............................

② The victim made a statement at the prosecution to the effect that he was threatened by the Defendant as stated in the facts charged. However, on February 13, 2018, the victim was unable to make a statement in this court because of the death of the victim, and the investigative agency’s statement was bound to have probative value, in essence, compared to the statement of the original person who made the original statement. In particular, in a case where the appearance and cross-examination of the original person is not conducted, the protocol containing the statement cannot be acknowledged as having genuine probative value, which serves as the foundation for the formation of the correct trial by the judge (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9730, Dec. 8, 2006). In addition, the content of the victim’s statement is difficult to recognize strong probative value by itself as follows.

In relation to intimidation on May 17, 2017, the Seoul House meeting room is a place where CCTVs under surveillance by correctional officers are installed (G record page 12), and it is very rare that the defendant was waiting to meet with a chance of chance, and that the first side E would have the victim make a statement on the D type of punishment. If it is not clear, it would have the victim continue to hold an additional case.

The victim stated in the prosecutor's office that "Apon May 19, 2017, the police officer "Aponed the statement about D, before the police officer's hearing, he would tear the statement about D." The victim stated in the prosecutor's office that "Apon's ‘I will tear the statement about D' before the police officer' is viewed as criminal. The prosecutor's inquiry that the police officer's response to the response is obstructed by the police officer's statement, and "I will am 'I will am early?? I will am 'I will am??? I will am 'I will am??? I will am? I will am am? I will come back with the conflict that I will make the statement about D? And I think I think I will contribute their seal, and I am am on the trial record, and the defendant did not take any measures to change the contents of the investigation record (the defendant's statement that the police officer's response was not against the rule of experience.

B. On May 2017, the Seoul detention center corridor could stop and talk with prisoners under the surveillance of a correctional officer. It is questionable whether it is possible to give concrete notice of harm and injury to the extent that the Defendant and the victim are 3 seconds even if following the statement in the G recording book 9 and the G in this court) and the Defendant’s defendant is under surveillance by a correctional officer, and the victim and the victim are faced with the victim, as shown in the facts charged, by using the moment when the Defendant is under surveillance by a correctional officer, and when the latter passes with the victim, “N is able to reverse the statement of D punishment and make it more than 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor. Unless it is so, it is questionable whether it is possible to give more specific notice of harm and injury to the effect that “N is to die with the eye of the people around four years and six months of imprisonment with prison labor.”

③ On May 17, 2017, E, which indicated in the facts charged, sent the victim’s intimidation to the victim, was served with the notice of attendance of the witness by this court, and left Korea abroad after submitting a written reason for absence to the effect that “I would be bad, I would not refuse to memory, and would not be memory.” (The prosecutor’s statement of E was not adopted as evidence because the authenticity is not recognized).

④ At the time of the instant case, J, K, and L, consistent with this court, had been confined to this court, and there was no fact that the Defendant appeared to threaten the victim or deliver the victim’s intimidation to the victim E, and the victim was in unstable mental state due to side effects of narcotics, etc. at the time. The victim stated to the effect that, after his detention, the Defendant was suspected of being in an inappropriate manner between his own female-child body and the victim’s sexual intercourse, he would be free from intimidation, and recruited the Defendant to make a statement of the witness, and that the victim respondeded to the investigation of G and E meritorious services. The above J, K, and L respectively were separated, and in particular, even though the Defendant was not in a friendly room as the victim, the credibility of the statement is high.

In light of the victim’s perception of narcotics exchange, the victim voluntarily surrendered to the Maak Police Station, and the Seoul detention center continued to use his/her mental and drugs, and the fact that the Defendant was suspected of having become an inappropriate space with his/her own female-friendly body after being detained, etc., even if following the G’s statement (G record No. 7,8,22-23). In addition to the victim’s psychological state at the time of the victim’s statement and the victim’s psychological state, G reverses the statement at this court’s prosecutor’s office and actively avoided the victim’s statement at this court, the possibility that the victim reported false facts cannot be ruled out to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

4. Conclusion

The facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, and thus, is pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and a summary of the judgment of the defendant is publicly announced pursuant to

The presiding judge, the highest judge;

Judges Gin-type money

Judges Shin Jae-ho