A. In other words, the Defendant did not err by misapprehending the legal principles, nor did the Defendant directed or asked C to mislead the importation of phiphones.

C Since each protocol and statement protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect to the prosecution (hereinafter referred to as “C interrogation protocol, etc.”) are prepared by the prosecution investigator, not the prosecutor, and as long as the defendant, who is an accomplice, denies the content thereof, it cannot be used as evidence, and as such, C testified to the effect that he/she had affixed a signature without reading it, the authenticity cannot be acknowledged.

In addition, since the protocol of interrogation of a suspect, etc. constitutes illegally collected evidence, the testimony of the court below which C testified to the same purport as stated in the investigation agency should also be excluded from the admissibility of evidence, and furthermore, the statement of C is not reliable.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by adopting C’s suspect interrogation protocol and the above statement as evidence, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion on admissibility of evidence 1) The protocol of interrogation of a suspect against the defendant, which is deemed to have been prepared by a prosecutor in appearance of the relevant legal principles as to the C suspect interrogation protocol, was prepared at the end of the interrogation that the defendant was a suspect without the presence of the prosecutor in charge of the military court officials in charge of the military court officials in charge of the military court officials in charge of the military court officials in charge of the military court officials in charge of the military court officials in charge of the military court officials in charge of the military court officials in charge of the military court officials in charge of the military court officials in charge of preparing and bringing about a protocol of interrogation of a suspect, stating the statement that the defendant

“The fact that there was a general question to the effect that the above Defendant was examined directly and individually as to the suspected fact.