A. The case that reversed the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that he violated the rules of evidence, or the case that admitted the admissibility of evidence under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act

(a) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which acquitted accomplices, on the grounds that there is no evidence in light of the nature of the retail shop crime committed by multiple accomplices, such as the conduct, wind, etc. before and after the crime;

(b) The case holding that a person who needs to make a statement under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act falls under the case where he is unable to make a statement on the court date due to other reasons

A. Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor (Defendant 2) and Defendant 1

Attorney Yu Young-chul

Busan High Court Decision 88No829 delivered on January 16, 1989

The part concerning Defendant 2 among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

Defendant 1) Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed.

The ninety days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence of Defendant 1.

1. As to Defendant 1 and his defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

The judgment of the court below that recognized the crime of injury by robbery against the above defendant did not err by the rules of evidence, such as the theory of the lawsuit. All arguments are without merit.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal:

Examining the facts charged as to Defendant 2, including the facts charged as to Defendant 1, the Defendants conspired jointly with Nonindicted Party 1 on March 15, 1988, and access to the bus at the bus stop located in Busan-gu, Busan-do, to the rear side, and Defendant 1 pushed off the body of the above victims, and Defendant 2 ran off the body of other passengers, and obstructed Defendant 1’s body in the future, and opened a lid lid on the front hand of the Defendant 1 with the right to see the fact that Defendant 1 did not have the right to see for 97,00 won in cash, and opened a lid 1 to 1 to see the left part of the Defendant 1 to see the fact that the 1 to 3rd 1 to 3rd 1 to 3rd 1 to 3rd 1 to 3rd 1 to 3rd 1 to 3rd 1 to 3rd 1 to 3rd 1 to 3rd 1 to 3rd 1 to 3rd 2 to 1 to 1 to m.

It is the fact that Non-Indicted 1 puts on the left-hand side of the right-hand side, which requires seven days prior to the trial.

As to this, the court below found that Defendant 1 committed the same theft as the above facts charged, the facts discovered by Defendant 2, together with Defendant 1 at the scene of the crime committed by Defendant 1, and the facts that Defendant 2 was behind or following Defendant 1 at the scene of the crime committed by Defendant 1, Defendant 2 removed Defendant 1 by Nonindicted 1 who attached Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 was in contact with Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 was in and near the police officer’s movement. However, it is hard to find that Defendant 2 conspired with Defendant 1, and Defendant 1’s body in collusion with Defendant 1 to prevent the victim from taking snow in the future, and thus, Defendant 1’s statement at the investigation agency of the victim 1 and Pyeonghee was hard to find that there was a legitimate difference between the victim’s statement and his testimony at the time of the crime committed by Defendant 1 and his legitimate evidence at the court, and thus, Defendant 1 was arrested on the ground that there was no evidence to support the victim’s first instance judgment.

However, at the crime place, the Defendants were frighten by and after the victim 1's rear and rear, and Defendant 1 was frighten from the victim 1's front and rear, and frightened the envelope, and the above victim sought the victim for the purpose of evading arrest of the sounder who was frighter with the envelope by using the envelope on the road, and committed violence against the victim 1, and Defendant 2 was frightd to the victim 1 or frighter, and Defendant 1 was removed from the Defendant 1's front and rear box so that it is difficult for the Defendants to know that the Defendants' statements were not made in the first instance court because it is difficult for the Defendants to frighten the victim's oral statement and to find it difficult for them not to know about the fact that they moved to retail crime and that they moved to conduct such act at retail before and after the crime acknowledged by the court below, but it is difficult for the Defendants to frighten the victim's statements in the first instance court.

In addition, the court below determined that the above statement was inadmissible since there was no legitimate evidence to acknowledge that Nonindicted 1 was unable to make a statement due to death, illness, or any other reason at the preparatory hearing or trial date, and that the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances. However, according to the prosecutor's protocol as to the reasons why Nonindicted 1 did not appear in the court of first instance and the court of the court of the court below, according to the reasons in the prosecutor's protocol as to the non-indicted 1's withdrawal of the distribution of the distribution of the distribution of the distribution of the distribution of the non-indicted 1, the court below found the family members of the retail offender after the case in three times or one's house and made verbal abuse, and it was hard to acknowledge that the non-indicted 1 was unable to make a statement at the preparatory hearing or the court of the court of the court of the first instance and the court of the court of the court below's decision, and it did not admit the admissibility of the evidence of the non-indicted 1's statement because it did not appear in the court of the court of the first instance.

As such, it is reasonable to discuss that the judgment of the court below on Defendant 2 committed an unlawful act that affected the judgment with the rule of evidence set forth in the part on Defendant 2.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant 2 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed, and part of the number of detention days after the appeal is to be included in the penalty as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)