2. The prosecutor applied for the protocol of the interrogation of the suspect to E, which inhales the horses at the time and place indicated in the facts charged to prove the above facts charged, as evidence, but this is not admissible as evidence by denying the content of the protocol of the interrogation of the suspect to the accomplice prepared by investigation agencies other than the prosecutor (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7185 delivered on July 15, 2004, etc.). Other evidence directly corresponding to the facts charged by the defendant at the investigation agency is admissible as evidence.

A witness E has some legal statements that he stated.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, i.e., ① the defendant denies the crime from the investigative agency to this court that there was no scambling himself, and ② the witness E inhales the scam from this court.

In light of the facts stated by the investigation agency, although the defendant did not directly state the inhaled, the situation after the defendant entered the me does not accurately memory and the defendant stated that he would know whether he inhaled the me, as stated in the facts charged, and the defendant testified that he would distort his memory in the meat m, as stated in the facts charged. And the defendant's investigation agency stated that the defendant's "at the time, E was about to drink two meats when she was about to drink me," and that "at the time, E was about to drink me, when she was about to drink me."