A. In light of the legal principles as to admissibility of evidence, confessions made at the first day of the trial by the prosecution against the defendant and the first day of the trial by the court below are inadmissible as there is no voluntariness. A) The defendant, in a self-contest and pressure at the investigation agency, made a confession to the effect that “the defendant took part in the plan to kill the victim by intimidation from AD” from the police officer in charge, he would be entitled to prior action, and made a false confession from the time when the third protocol of suspect interrogation by the police officer was prepared, so the above confession statement is not discretionary as it was made by promise and return.

Since the prosecutor also led to the confession of the trial status, each protocol of interrogation of the defendant by the prosecutor has no voluntariness and each protocol of interrogation of the defendant is inadmissible.

B) Although the Defendant, without the intervention of AD, received the indictment from the Defendant, which led the Defendant’s plan to kill the victim solely and instructed the plan, the Defendant made a wrong statement to the effect that “the Defendant participated in the crime in accordance with AD instructions,” at the first preparatory hearing of the lower court, based on the erroneous judgment that it was favorable for the Defendant to maintain his statement in the investigative agency. This is due to the fact that the psychological situation of the investigative agency that led the Defendant to make a confession that is not voluntary, continued to exist, and thus, the confession made at the first preparatory hearing of the lower court is inadmissible as there is no arbitability, and thus, the admissibility of the statement made by the relevant persons

A) The written statement (Evidence Nos. 266, 267) and the police statement (Evidence List Nos. 268, 269, 270, 308) are inadmissible. In other words, D constitutes a person who has a de facto accomplice status, such as the Defendant and E (one-person acting as a intermediary for communication of F), and thus, as long as the Defendant gave consent to the effect that each of the above evidence on the trial date, the Criminal Procedure Act provides for the same effect.