공동피고인을 상대로 한 진술증거의성격과 증거의 인부

Because it is a written or spoken evidence of a co-defendant who is in compliance relations with a defendant, or even if a co-defendant has little of compliance relations who are not accused as accomplice, because he is the person who is together tried at the public trial, one’s statement evidence has high evidential value. However in other words, co-defendant’s evidence statement also has characteristics that it could affect directly to the defendant when the statement is manipulated, so there have been many discussions on the notion of co-defendant and their eligibility of witness. Precedents of supreme justice deny eligibility of witness for co-defendants who is also an accomplice, but they also accept co-defendants’ testimonies as evidences to take cognizance of a crime without any process of interrogation. Thus, at the working level, the court accepts admissibility of protocols of examination of a suspect by judicial police officer that writes testimonies of accomplice co-defendant without arraignment of witness to statement evidence. This problem relates to another problem of how to look at characteristics of protocols of examination of a suspect on co-defendant by judicial police officer, and precedents deem these protocols of examination has those of the Criminal Procedure Code, Article 312, paragraph 3, but not of Article 312, paragraph 4. However, this sort of attitude of precedents not only disobey the regulation of the Criminal Procedure Code where it deem any protocol that are not from defendant himself as protocols that belong to Article 312, paragraph 4, and the attitude also bears risk of falsely accusing defendant as guilty by co-defendant’s making false statement for him not taking responsibility of perjury. This thesis points at issue of aforementioned questions, and judges under which evaluation of testimonies of co-defendant or that of characteristics and admissibility on written statement of those testimonies can successfully reduce aforementioned risk.