All
| TITLE | 【Syllabus of Latest Opinion】 Supreme Court Decision 2023Do15133, 2023Jeondo163, 164 Decided March 28, 2024 【Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes (Rape through Abuse of Consanguineous Relationship); Violation of the Child Welfare Act (Child Abuse); Violation of the Child Welfare Act (Forcing a Child to Engage in Lewd Acts; Arranging Such Acts; Sexual Abuse Against a Child); Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Meaning of “a written statement prepared by a criminal defendant or any other person, or a document containing the statement, except as provided for in the preceding two Articles” under Article 313(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (held: documents prepared outside the investigative process) Whether a document containing a written statement prepared by a person other than the criminal defendant may be considered to constitute “a written statement prepared by a criminal defendant or any other person” under Article 313(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act if, when substantively reviewing the said document, it is difficult to be considered to have been prepared outside the investigative process because it was prepared after the commencement of the investigation either with the interference of or under the influence of the investigative agency (negative) Necessity of strict constraint on the recognition of admissibility of recorded video statement of a person other than the criminal defendant in the process of investigation by a person other than the investigative agency [2] In a case where: (a) the prosecutor commissioned an analysis of a statement of a child victim to a statement analysis officer of the scientific investigation bureau of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office when investigating the allegations of the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes of the defendants; (b) the statement analysis officer interviewed the victim and recorded the interview, which was produced in a CD-ROM containing the recorded video of the analysis of the victim’s statement (video recording) and was submitted as evidence; and (c) the admissibility of the pertinent CD was disputed, the case holding that the video recording cannot be considered to have been prepared outside the investigative process when examined in light of the overall circumstances, and is therefore inadmissible as evidence pursuant to Article 313(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the lower judgment, which viewed the video recording as inadmissible in the same vein, is just and proper | |
