Relationship between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea under Article 4 of the Mutual Defense Treaty and Article 22 (9) (c) and Article 22 of the Agreement and Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Article 22 (9) (c) and Article 22 of the Agreement between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea under Article 4 of the Mutual Defense Treaty shall be interpreted as a right guaranteed by the United States Armed Forces in trial proceedings in cases where a public prosecution is instituted by the exercise of jurisdiction in the Republic of Korea in accordance with its named statement, and it shall be construed as a provision that is naturally premised on cases where a witness may appear at his/her discretion or by compulsory proceedings, and it shall not be deemed as a special law that excludes the application of the main sentence of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 22 (9) (c) of the Agreement under Article 4 of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea, Article 22 of the Agreed Minutes of the Agreement, Articles 314 and 313 of the Criminal Procedure

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yellow-il

Seoul High Court Decision 86No1723 delivered on October 8, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

ninety days under detention after an appeal shall be included in the term of punishment.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

Article 22 (9) (c) of the Agreement between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces under Article 4 of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America provides that members of the United States Armed Forces or their families shall have the right to face-to-face and examine witnesses unfavorable to them at any time when public prosecution is instituted under jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea, and Article 22 of the Agreed Minutes of the Agreement provides that, in relation to Article 22 (9) (c) of the Agreement, members of the United States Armed Forces and their families presumed by the authorities of the Republic of Korea shall have the right to participate in all the proceedings of investigation, trial prior to the trial, trial, trial, trial and trial which are favorable or unfavorable to all the witness and shall be given sufficient opportunity to examine the witness on the date of trial, and this provision provides that members of the United States Armed Forces, their families or their families shall have the right to be guaranteed at any time in the trial proceedings, and this provision shall not be interpreted as a provision of Article 31 of the Agreement and the Criminal Procedure.

Therefore, with respect to the grounds for appeal disputing the admissibility of the written statement prepared by the "Stop" on its grounds, the court below determined that there is no way to have the person making the original statement present at the court by compulsory procedure after returning it to his own country, which constitutes a case where the person who needs to make a statement on the court date is unable to make a statement due to death, illness, or other reasons, and therefore, it is just to determine that the written statement is admissible in accordance with Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to the theory of lawsuit.

With respect to paragraphs 2 and 3:

According to the evidence adopted by the court below, since all the criminal facts of larceny and attempted murder in the judgment against the defendant can be recognized without any evidence, there is no illegality of conviction without any evidence, and the process of evidence shall not be deemed as a violation of the rules of evidence inconsistent with the rules of experience and logical rules, such as the theory of lawsuit. Furthermore, in light of the records, the court below's decision that the defendant can recognize the criminal intent of murder in light of the fact that the defendant was using deadly weapons, such as hacks and knife, with the tool of crime, and that the victim's bodily injury is a very dangerous head, hacks and hacks, etc., it shall not be deemed that there

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the detention days prior to the judgment is included in the term of punishment, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)