If the records are examined by comparing the records of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below on the charge of assault and death among the facts charged against the defendant, etc., the defendants denies the facts charged since the trial of the court of first instance, and the defendant did not consent to the examination of the protocol of trial prepared by the court of first instance as evidence by the prosecutor or the judicial police officer in preparation of a statement of witness in the process of handling affairs by the prosecutor or Kim Young-young. Thus, unless there is any reason falling under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it shall be proved that the authenticity of its establishment is proven by the testimony of the maker or the person who made the statement during the trial in accordance with the main sentence of Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act, unless there is any reason falling under Article 314 of the same Act. According to the records, it is clear that the examination of the doctor's opinion in writing is not proven to be genuine, and it is evident that there is no proof that the establishment of the protocol of trial is correct, and it is made by the prosecutor and the judicial police officer.

The witness "in this case" refers to a statement made by the police and the prosecutor of the prosecution.

There is a fact that the police and the prosecutor make a statement.

“Does ???????????????

The term "responding" is true and only the Eup made a true statement.

Since the above statements were made only to the effect that it is somewhat different from the facts, the above statements are not sufficient to prove the authenticity of the establishment of the court below's establishment, and the above statements cannot be deemed to have been made only by the judicial police officer, and the witness inside the court of first instance as stated in the main sentence of Article 312 (1) of the above Act refers to the maker of the evidence inspection protocol, and the mere person participating in the examination cannot be deemed to have proven the authenticity of the establishment of the court below's judgment, and the above statements or documents cannot be deemed to have been used as evidence without the consent of the court below since the above statements or documents are not admissible as evidence of Article 314 of the Act, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of the court below's reasoning that the defendant's statements in the court of first instance and the defendants' statements in the court of first instance cannot be used as evidence for the evidence evidence of this case, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of the court below's legal principles regarding the defendant's right to use the defendant's remaining evidence in the court of first instance.

Justices Hong Man-hee (Presiding Justice)