All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2011Do3809 Decided July 14, 2011 [Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribe)] [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| [1] The case holding that taking a witness statement does not constitute unlawful evidence collection, in case where an officer from the prosecution office met the bribe payer Gap in a foreign country personally and took Gap's witness statement without going through the judicial cooperation procedure [2] Elements for a witness statement, which is hearsay evidence, to be admissible as evidence under Article 367 of the Military Court Act [3] The case holding that in case where, after the officer charged the defendant with bribery, the officer from the prosecution office met the bribe payer Gap in a foreign country personally and took a witness statement without going through the judicial cooperation procedure, the witness statement is not admissible as evidence for conviction since it is hard to view that there is evidence to support that the above witness statement was made in an especially reliable situation [4] The case holding that a witness statement cannot be used as evidence for conviction, in case where the defendant's counsel objected to the witness statement by the bribe payer Gap, but consented as to the prosecution assistant's investigation report which contained the same statement as an attachment, and evidence examination for the report was completed, and the court below held that the consent for the investigation report applied to the attached statement as well [5] The case holding that the judgment below's conviction of the charge merely based on inadmissible evidence or evidence with weak probative value has errors in the misapprehension of legal principles of admissibility of hearsay evidence, in case where the defendant who had been in charge of military unit facilities construction as a commander of the marine corps was prosecuted for receiving a bribe from construction business enterpriser Gap related to his job duties in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (bribe) | |
