beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court dismissed the protocol of examination of the police interrogation as to D and the written statement prepared by D by the prosecution in accordance with Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, dismissed the admissibility of the evidence. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine
B. The above evidence is inadmissible.
Even if the remaining evidence alone is found guilty of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misconception of facts, since it rendered a not-guilty verdict.
2. Determination
A. Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies not only to the case where an investigative agency other than the prosecutor's interrogation protocol of the suspect against D is admitted as evidence of guilt, but also to the case where an investigative agency other than the prosecutor's prosecutor's interrogation protocol of the defendant or the suspect who is an accomplice relation to the defendant is admitted as evidence of guilt against the defendant. The interrogation protocol of the suspect prepared by the investigative agency other than the prosecutor's suspect who is an accomplice relation with the defendant is admitted as evidence of guilt by the suspect's court statement, if the defendant denies the contents of the protocol on the trial date, the admissibility of evidence is denied, and as a result, Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is an exceptional provision that recognizes admissibility, is not applied to the interrogation protocol of the suspect as evidence when it is impossible to make a statement in the court due to reasons such as death (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Do7185, Jul. 1
According to the facts charged in this case, the defendant and D are co-offenders, and the defendant denied the contents of the police interrogation protocol as to D at the court below.
Thus, the above interrogation protocol does not meet the requirements of Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act.