The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning and evidence, by deeming that the Defendant had intentionally committed the instant crime.

However, it cannot be said that the police statement of the victim, which the court below considered as evidence of guilt, was prepared in accordance with legitimate procedures and methods because the victim's signature or seal is omitted.

Therefore, the above statement of statement is inadmissible in accordance with Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the court below's measure which is admitted as evidence of guilt is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle on admissibility of evidence.

However, even based on the evidence duly admitted as evidence, it is sufficient to find the Defendant guilty of the instant charges. Accordingly, the lower court’s above error did not have affected the conclusion of the judgment, and otherwise, did not err by misapprehending the facts contrary to the rules of evidence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.