The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

At the time of preparing the police interrogation protocol against the defendant (No. 11 of the evidence list), the defendant refused to peruse and sign the protocol as an interpretation issue, and the court below denied the purpose of proof and denied the content.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in finding the defendant guilty by taking the above interrogation protocol without admissibility as evidence.

The defendant did not assault the victim.

The judgment of the court below which pronounced the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

Judgment

The examination of the defendant's interrogation protocol prepared by the judicial police assistant without the signature, seal, and seal of the defendant as to the assertion on admissibility of evidence is inadmissible, and the defendant's refusal to affix his/her signature, seal, or seal to affix his/her seal is not different since the defendant's refusal to affix his/her signature, seal, or seal.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Do237, Apr. 13, 1999; 92Do954, Jun. 23, 1992). We examine the above legal principles in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

According to the records of this case, the defendant refused to peruse the suspect interrogation protocol on June 19, 2019 on the grounds that the interpreter cannot be trusted during the police interrogation, and refused to affix his/her signature and seal. Accordingly, the above suspect interrogation protocol contains no signature and seal or seal of the defendant and there is no signature and seal or seal of the interpreter and the police.

The interrogation protocol (No. 11 of the evidence list) prepared by the judicial police assistant against the accused is inadmissible as there is no signature, seal and seal of the accused.

The judgment of the court below that recognized admissibility of the above suspect interrogation protocol as evidence of guilt is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle.

The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence of "victim's statement", but the victim's statement was not adopted as evidence at the court below.

The judgment of the court below is the police of the victim.