Whether admissibility of evidence of the written evidence of the witness who has already finished testimony at a preparatory hearing or during a public trial may be acknowledged, after summons by the prosecutor, to the effect that the witness gives favorable testimony to the defendant and reverse it unilaterally (negative with qualification)

[1] Articles 312, 313, and 318 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 99Do1108 delivered on June 15, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 1713)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Incheon District Court Decision 2003No1132 delivered on November 6, 2003

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the second ground for appeal

In addition, it is against the legal structure of the current Criminal Procedure Act aiming at the principle of party, the principle of public trial-oriented principle, and the principle of directness, and it is against the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 27 of the Constitution, i.e., the right to a trial where all the evidence is investigated and stated in the presence of a judge and the defendant is given an opportunity to attack and defend against it. Thus, such written evidence is inadmissible unless the defendant agrees that it can be admitted as evidence. Further, even if the previous witness who is the original person who made the original statement again appeared in the court and recognized the authenticity of the establishment of the written statement while the testimony is present in the court and the defendant is given an opportunity to cross-examine it, the above written statement cannot be admissible as evidence, regardless of the fact that the testimony itself can be admitted as evidence of guilt (Supreme Court en banc Decision 9Do108 delivered on June 15, 200).

The court below's rejection of the admissibility of the written statement prepared by the prosecutor on April 9, 2003 against Kim Jong-young is just in light of the above legal principles and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3

Examining the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below in light of the records, we affirm the measures of maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no proof of criminal facts in this case, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, or misapprehension of the legal principle as alleged in

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

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)