A statement prepared by a judicial police assistant and legality of an examination protocol of a suspect;

The protocol of statement and protocol of interrogation of the assistant judicial police officer are documents prepared by the assistant judicial police officer under Article 196(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 2 of the Judicial Police Officers Act and Article 6 of the Police Officers Act and Article 3 of the Police Officers Act to assist in investigation affairs. Thus, it cannot be said that it is a protocol by an unauthorized person.

Article 196 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 2 of the Rules on Judicial Police Officers

Supreme Court Decision 82Do63 delivered on March 9, 1982

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Sang-chul

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 82No5 delivered on March 19, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

The testimony of the witness of the court of first instance, which the court below admitted as evidence of conviction, is inadmissible as a professional statement, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, it is unlawful that the court below used it as evidence of conviction. However, since the facts of the judgment on the defendant can be recognized by only the evidence at the time of the remaining court below except the above evidence, the above mistake did not affect the judgment, and thus, it cannot be justified to reverse the judgment below.

With respect to the second ground:

The protocol of statement and protocol of interrogation of the assistant judicial police officer are documents prepared by the assistant judicial police officer under Article 196(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 2 of the Judicial Police Officers Act and Article 6 of the Police Officers Act, and Article 3 of the Police Officers Act to assist in investigation affairs. Thus, it cannot be seen as a protocol of a person without authority (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do63 delivered on March 9, 1982). Thus, there is no discussion on this point.

With respect to paragraphs 3 and 4:

According to the evidence of the court below other than the testimony of the witness of the court of first instance as above, the facts of the judgment are lawful and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, and all arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)