The Supreme Court rendered the 105-Tai-Shang-2381 Criminal Decision of September 22, 2016 (hereinafter, the “Decision”), holding that in case of any major dispute as to whether a voice in a recorded conservation contained in an optical disc is the voice of the defendant which cannot be determined, a professional examination institution should be retained for examination, and no determination can be made merely based on the judgment and opinion of an witness.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, it was held in the original decision that the Defendants had jointly committed offenses such as illegal operation of deposit acceptance business, illegal multilevel marketing, and illegal placement and issuance of marketable securities. Dissatisfied, the Defendants appealed.
According to the Decision, whether the voices of individuals in the conversations recorded in the optical disc which was relied on to conclude the Defendants’ offenses were actually the voices of the Defendants involve scientific expertise in voice identification. If the parties concerned deny or if such voices cannot be determined due to any major dispute, a professional examination institution should certainly be retained to make the determination, which cannot be made simply based on the judgment or opinion or a witness.
It was further held in the Decision that although the original trial court had requested the Bureau of Investigation under the Ministry of Justice to examine the above optical disc containing the audio recording, still voice identification could not be conducted due to poor quality of audio recording. Therefore, to determine whether the voices are those of the Defendants, another professional examination institution should certainly be retained for the sake of determination or other solid evidence should be investigated to make the determination. Since the original trial court jumped to the conclusion that the voices in the conversations recorded in the above optical disc were those of the Defendants merely based on the personal judgment and opinion of a witness without investigating other solid evidence and arrived at findings unfavorable to the Defendants, the original decision was deemed rash and was reversed and remanded.