(A) As argued in this paper, each statement made by the prosecutor and the senior judicial police officer regarding the truth-finding of the witness has no merit that the person making the original statement has admitted the authenticity on the trial date, so it cannot be admissible as evidence. (B) The above defendant is clear in the record that the facts charged are different from those of the defendants, and thus, it cannot be admitted as evidence that the statement made by the defendant in the above defendant in the court cannot be admitted as evidence to acknowledge the facts charged with the defendant's offense. Thus, the above defendant cannot be admitted as evidence because the above defendant merely becomes the defendant in a concurrent trial, and it cannot be used as evidence as evidence for the relation to the defendant, which is obvious that he did not take an oath. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which admitted the admissibility of evidence in (a) and (b) cannot be admitted as evidence of guilt, but it cannot affect the conclusion of the judgment that the remaining evidence of the court below except the evidence in the above two cases can be admitted as the facts charged with the crime.

In addition, the fact-finding based on the rules of evidence and the rules of experience in the judgment of the court below, which means the fact-finding with the rules of evidence and the rules of experience, is returned to the

It is reasonable to see that the original judgment is correct, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)