All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (Violation of the Juvenile Protection Act) 1: (a) The Defendant misleads the misunderstanding of the fact, before May 16, 2017, sold tobacco without confirmation of the identification card, deeming E as an adult, because he/she had his/her resident registration certificate and calculated tobacco.

2) The admissibility of evidence is denied if the prosecutor illegally investigates the witness who testified in the court of law by misunderstanding the legal principles and makes the witness reverses the contents of the testimony before the prosecution.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the prosecutor (the part concerning the perjury) committed the crime of perjury by causing the F to testify false facts to E, the fact that F made a proposal of false facts at the Defendant’s request for explanation, the fact that F accepted it by the Defendant, and submitted a confirmation document prepared by E to the court that the Defendant provided F with the contact information of the counsel, and that the Defendant provided counseling about the testimony, even if the Defendant did not directly assist the E, the suspicion of soliciting teachers is sufficiently recognized.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the protocol prepared by the method that the prosecutor summoneds the witness who has already finished testimony at a preparatory hearing for, or at a public trial date, and then unilaterally reverses the testimony favorable to the Defendant, or the protocol prepared by the suspect interrogation containing the investigation of suspicion of perjury against the witness, shall be inadmissible as evidence, unless the Defendant consents that the protocol of examination of suspicion of perjury may be admitted as evidence. However, if the previous witness again appeared at the court again in the person who has thereafter made the original statement, his/her testimony itself may be admitted as evidence of guilt (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do1660, May 31, 2017). Thus, it cannot be deemed unlawful to summon the prosecutor’s witness E who has already finished testimony and investigated him/her, as alleged by the Defendant, and make the witness reverse his/her testimony again as a witness.

Therefore, this part of the defendant.