All
| TITLE | 【Syllabus of Latest Opinion】Supreme Court Decision en banc Decision 2018Do14303 Decided August 29, 2019 【Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, Etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Bribery); Abuse of Authority and Obstructing Another from Exercising Right; Coercion (Partly Acknowledged Name of Crime: Attempted Coercion); Attempted Coercion; Occupational Disclosure of Other’s Secrets】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Admissibility of hearsay evidence Standard for determining whether a statement based on another person’s statement constitutes hearsay evidence or original evidence In a case involving a document recording a statement, where the authenticity of its contents is used as direct evidence against a crime, whether it is considered hearsay evidence (affirmative), and in a case where: (a) the admissibility of a document is recognized on the grounds that it would be used as circumstantial evidence on the fact that a statement to a certain effect was made; (b) the relevant fact is again used as indirect evidence proving the contents of a statement or its authenticity, whether the relevant document constitutes hearsay evidence (affirmative) [2] Intent of Article 364-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and whether the foregoing provision is applied only to the cases where the relevant fact charged, which is subject to quashing for the same reason, is adjudicated in the consolidated proceeding in the same litigation proceedings (affirmative) [3] In a case where the Defendant, a former president of the Republic of Korea, was indicted on charges of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, Etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Bribery), abuse of authority and obstructing another from exercising rights, and coercion by accepting a bribe in relation to duties during her years in the office and committed the act of coercion by abusing her authority, the case holding as follows: (a) the lower court pronounced a single sentence by applying Article 38 of the Criminal Act, instead of pronouncing separate penalties for violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Separate Economic Crimes (Bribery) and the remainder of the charges pursuant to Article 18(1)3 and 18(3) of the Public Official Election Act; (b) in so determining, the lower court misapprehended the legal doctrine under Article 18(3) of the Public Official Election Act |
|
