Whether the protocol of interrogation of another person prepared by the public prosecutor who is admitted to have the authenticity by the testimony of the person who made the statement, the protocol of interrogation of the co-defendant as to the co-defendant and the protocol of protocol of statement are admissible (affirmative)

When the protocol of interrogation of another person prepared by the prosecutor recognizes the authenticity by the testimony at the court of the person who made the statement, and the protocol of interrogation of the co-defendant as to the co-defendant prepared by the public prosecutor recognizes the establishment and arbitability in the court, all the above protocol of interrogation are admissible as evidence for the facts charged

Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 90No601 delivered on December 14, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below and the court of first instance is acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principles.

Examining the record, the court of first instance or the court below did not use the interrogation protocol of the defendant prepared by the public prosecutor as evidence of fact-finding, and each interrogation protocol of the non-indicted 1 and 2 prepared by the court of first instance or the court of first instance, which is admitted as evidence, is acknowledged to be genuine by the testimony in the court of first instance and the court of first instance. The interrogation protocol and statement of the co-defendant prepared by the public prosecutor, are admitted in the court of first instance as they are established and discretionary in the court of first instance and they are admissible. Since the contents of this protocol conflict with those of their statements in the court of first instance, they cannot be admissible or they cannot be said to have no admissibility.

In addition, the contents of the release on bail for the accused or the co-defendant in the first instance trial cannot be deemed to have made a false confession, and it does not seem to have any voluntariness, and the first instance court or the lower court did not find facts only with the confession of the accused without any supporting evidence.

The court below did not take the testimony in the court of first instance at the court of first instance, the co-defendants of the court of first instance, and the subordinate-hees of the court of first instance, and this does not violate the rules of evidence. There is no reason to charge the fact-finding of the court of

On the second ground for appeal

In this case where the defendant was sentenced to less than 10 years of imprisonment with prison labor, the defendant cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing. Therefore, this issue is 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 Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)