A. In light of the legal principles, there was no consent of the defendant to the police statements made by G police as evidence, and there was no recognition of the authenticity by the statement made by G court date, which is the original person making the original statement, so there was an error of law adopted as evidence,

B. In determining the facts, the Defendant entered into a security contract with Q (hereinafter “ Q”) and its subcontractor to the effect that the exercise of the right of retention by the K director of the Company E (hereinafter “E”) was unlawful, and performed the facility security service. Therefore, there was no intention on the part of the Defendant.

C. The Defendant’s absence of punishment for the same kind of force, the Defendant’s violation of the victim’s damage, and the Defendant’s work under the Security Industry Act.

Considering the fact that the case leads to this case, the punishment of the court below (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in order to determine whether to admit the admissibility of evidence, a person who needs to make a statement on the court date as evidence pursuant to Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act must be a person who is unable to appear and make a statement in a public ruling due to death, disease, foreign residence, unknown whereabouts, or any other similar cause, and the statement should be made under particularly reliable circumstances.

In addition, the requirements of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provide for the exception of direct care and hearsay rule, must be strictly examined, and the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the requirements for the admissibility of hearsay evidence. Thus, if the court intends to recognize that the witness is unable to make a statement due to the unknown whereabouts or other similar reasons, it is inevitable to say that the witness is unable to make a statement.