A. In light of the legal principles as to admissibility of evidence, the part concerning E’s statement among the second-time suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor against the defendant during the second-time suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor against the defendant, has the nature of E’s interrogation protocol. Thus, E’s above statements made without notifying the right to refuse to make statements to E are illegally collected evidence and are inadmissible.

The protocol of interrogation of a suspect E, which is not a prosecutor, for the preparation of the examination of a suspect E, is prepared by a court official in charge of narcotics investigation who is not a prosecutor, and the protocol of interrogation of a suspect as mentioned above is not prepared by a prosecutor, so long as the defendant denies its contents, all of the protocol of interrogation of a suspect cannot be used as evidence of guilt.

Fidelity’s legal statement E of the lower court is identical to the E’s prosecutor’s statement that constitutes illegally collected evidence by taking place in a state where the right to refuse to make a statement is not notified to E, and is thus inadmissible as it constitutes a secondary evidence based on illegally collected evidence.

B. The statements of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the credibility of the statements of E and F are not reliable in light of all circumstances.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles as to admissibility of evidence, if the document or document stating the E’s statement in the second interrogation protocol on the Defendant’s interrogation of suspect was prepared in the course of investigation into the investigative agency, the document or document was in the form of “a statement, a written statement, or a written statement”.

Even if it is not different from the protocol of interrogation of a suspect, the status of a suspect subject to notification of the right to refuse to make statements by an investigative agency is suspected of a crime against a person subject to investigation even before the investigative agency takes a formal procedure for acceptance of a case, such as preparing a written statement of criminal.

in substance.