In light of the fact that the admissibility and probative value of the interrogation protocol and the protocol of statement in the first instance court of the case subject to review did not assert harsh acts, there is no evidence of cruel acts, and it is difficult to deny the voluntariness of the statement in light of the Defendant’s educational background and ability, the lower court denied all the admissibility and probative value of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor.

In addition, since there is no clear evidence of suspicion, the court below denied F's admissibility of the prosecutor's statement by prosecution.

B. In the case subject to review of the defendant and F’s credibility, the court below denied the defendant’s and F’s legal statement even in the case subject to review, in light of the following: (a) the contents of the statement in the first instance court of the case subject to review of the credibility of the statement in the court of first instance received specific assistance from the counsel; (b) the fact that the court denied only the confidential North Korea facts in the appellate court; (c) the materials submitted by the defense counsel for the impeachment of the facts charged (in particular, the duty to attend), and (d) the F re

C. The admissibility of seized articles was admitted in cases subject to review, and it is unreasonable to deny the admissibility of seized articles based on the subsequent Supreme Court ruling.

2. Determination

A. The lower court denied the admissibility of relevant evidence on the following grounds.

1) Each police interrogation protocol and each written statement of the defendant against the defendant are denied by the defendant, and each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the defendant is denied by illegal confinement for a long time and cruel acts. 2) Each police interrogation protocol against F, each written statement of F, and each written statement of F.