A. Inasmuch as the investigative report (Attachment of a documentary photograph flaged at C’s pharmacy on July 27, 2014) attached to the investigation report (hereinafter “instant photograph”) is a photograph taken by an illegal voluntary accompanying at the C’s pharmacy on July 27, 2014 (hereinafter “instant photograph”), the lower court, inasmuch as it is inadmissible as evidence of unlawful collection. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby making it admissible as evidence of guilt.

B. While the Defendant only sold documentary accounts (hereinafter “former documentary accounts”) that could be sold by the piece, but did not sell documentary accounts that could not be sold by the piece due to the manufacturer’s sealing in five units, the Defendant did not sell the printed documentary accounts that could not be sold by the piece (hereinafter “new documentary accounts”). However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, thereby convicting the Defendant of this case.

2. Determination

A. (1) Police officers accompanied the above investigation report to C pharmacy with the consent of the defendant

(2) According to the argument on the grounds of appeal, the Defendant directly opened the door of C’s pharmacy. (3) In light of the fact that the Defendant consented to the above investigation report and the photograph of this case as evidence without any aforementioned assertion and the Defendant started to make the above argument, the Defendant’s voluntary accompanying cannot be accepted, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion against the Defendant cannot be accepted (in addition, even if the admissibility of the photograph of this case is not recognized, the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the remaining court of the original judgment and the court of the first instance and the court of the first instance, are fully convicted of the facts charged of this case). (B) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of the original court and the court of the first instance, in particular, E and the testimony at the court of the first instance, the Defendant opened a new documentary box sealed by the Defendant five units, as indicated in the facts charged of this case, and opened it to E.