(a) The CD 1’s film recording inside the game room does not constitute professional evidence, because it is a non-satisfic evidence, in that the face value of the customer’s satisfy and the face value of the customer’s satisfy to be included in two game instruments designated by the customer (on the scene of crime).

The above video is admitted as admissibility and probative value because there are no ex post facto manipulation or editing circumstances.

B. The video CD 2 ( File 1, 2) is a conversation between K and the filmer of the game site of this case, and thus does not constitute illegally collected evidence in violation of the Communications Secret Protection Act.

In addition, the authenticity is admissible because the authenticity is recognized by the testimony of E, a dialogue.

(c)

All reporters 1 and 2 mean E, and only they expressed 1 and 2 information according to the order of information that E demands anonymous.

E’s statements are relatively consistent and credibility in light of the background of such information, etc.

(d)

According to this, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the fact that the facts charged are sufficiently recognized is erroneous.

2. In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court’s judgment, the lower court’s determination that found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case is justifiable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts.

(a) Two video CDs are not admissible as follows:

1) According to the legal statements of the court below as seen below, E took the above video images.

Therefore, the admissibility of the two video CDs cannot be determined by the E’s legal statement in the lower court, as the authenticity of the two video files is not recognized.

1. Whether E has produced the video related to the instant case

The question is that ‘the video is mixed with only one person, as well as the other.'

(w).