A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant denied the actual authenticity of part of the above protocol by asserting that part of the prosecution protocol against the Defendant was not written as the Defendant stated, and the court below did not adopt as evidence a part of the prosecution interrogation protocol against the Defendant.

However, for the following reasons, the court of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the admissibility of suspect interrogation protocol.

1) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, the statement recorded in the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant was proved to have been the same as the defendant stated.

must be viewed.

The contents of the defendant's statement in the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant are very concrete.

In the end of the above suspect interrogation protocol, the defendant's statement is not recorded as stated in the protocol, or there is any fact different from the fact.

“Isn Eup” as a written question.

“.............” described “.....”

After reading the protocol 20 minutes, the Defendant stated “no” in the column of “other matters necessary for verifying the progress of the investigation process” of a written confirmation of the investigation process, and stated “no” as “no” in the column of “no objection, statement of opinion, and the content thereof.”

2) Whether the contents recorded in the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant prepared by the defendant or his defense counsel are different from those stated by the defendant.

In the case of a statement, the part written differently from the part written by the defendant in the pertinent protocol must be specified (see Article 134(3) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure). This case is not written as the statement only for the confession related to the charge of perjury.

The assertion has not been made properly on the basis of these rules.