A. Admissibility of evidence of testimony and statement of witness whose criminal intent is the defendant's criminal defendant

(b) Probative value of photographic images of the defendant's crime, among the examination records prepared by judicial police officers;

A. Among the witness testimony of the witness (A) and the prosecutor's protocol of the prosecutor's protocol of the witness's protocol, the part of the defendant's statement that the defendant took the same criminal act as the facts charged to the witness is inadmissible, since it is difficult to see that the above statement of the defendant's Dong was made under particularly reliable circumstances, in light of the fact that the defendant's aforementioned statement was made through a police officer's conduct, a hotel pension, and was investigated for five days from the date of the case.

B. If the defendant's statement and records of the crime cannot be seen as being conducted under particularly reliable circumstances after peeping the fact that he/she received a strict door in the police investigation process, the part concerning the defendant's statement and photographs and images of the crime committed in the examination protocol prepared by the judicial police officer is inadmissible.

A. Article 316 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Byung-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 83No2062 delivered on October 26, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the fact that the defendant, on December 29, 1982, led to the confession of the crime of this case to pro-Japanese Kim Jong-do from the second floor of the police box around December 29, 1982, and that he naturally led to this case in the verification conducted by the police;

A. Among the testimony of the first instance court witness Kimdo-hwan and the prosecutor's protocol of the prosecutor's protocol on the same person, the part of the defendant's first instance court's statement that the defendant satisfyed the same crime as the facts charged is admissible only when the defendant's above statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances. In light of the fact that the defendant was a police officer's pension from December 26, 1982 to 30 of the same month on the day of the case and was investigated without unlocked, it is difficult to see that the above statement of the defendant's Dong-in was in a particularly reliable state, and thus the above testimony and the part of the statement are inadmissible.

B. According to the records of this case, if the protocol of inspection of evidence prepared by a judicial police officer is examined, the part concerning the statement of the defendant, which corresponds to the crime of this case, and the part concerning the photographic image of the crime of this case, are attached, but this is not recognized as being authentic by the original person and the defendant, who is the offender, and as seen above, the defendant cannot be viewed as being conducted under particularly reliable circumstances in accordance with the purport of the original judgment, that the defendant's statement and the fact that he had received strict questions in the police investigation process can be seen as having been conducted in accordance with the purport of the original judgment. Thus, the part concerning the defendant's statement and the photographic image of the crime of this case in

2. The judgment of the court of first instance that affirmed the judgment of the court below which acquitted the witness on the ground that each content of the prosecutor's office and the police's each content of the witness's statement and each content of the witness statement in the witness's office and the witness's office are merely circumstantial evidence, and these alone are insufficient to recognize the facts charged, and there is no proof of the facts charged, and it is not reasonable to conclude that there is no violation of documentary evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

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

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)