All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (1) The court below found the Defendants not guilty even if the Defendants were found guilty of violating the public law, in full view of the following: (i) the fact that the investigative agency conducted the charge against the Defendants at the time, or did not confirm the suspicion of suspicion; (ii) the Defendants did not make a harsh act at the investigative agency in the court of the case subject to review; and (iii) the admissibility of confession is recognized by recognizing the fact that the Defendants made a statement identical to the facts charged; and (iii) the court issued a detention warrant to the Defendants at the time; and (iii) once the detention was renewed on three occasions, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendants committed an illegal act by the investigative agency; and (iv) the court below erred by misapprehending

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s protocol of interrogation of the Defendants and each written statement prepared by the Defendants during the police investigation process, deeming that the Defendants’ defense counsel denies the facts charged in this case, is inadmissible, and it is not admissible. ② Each prosecutor’s protocol of interrogation of the Defendants against the Defendants was inadmissible due to the illegal confinement, hearing, or chilling psychological condition during the police investigation process, and there is any circumstance to suspect that the Defendants made a confession of the same contents as the confession in the police, and there is no doubts that the police officer G, who was in charge of the investigation of the police, continued to make a confession during the interrogation stage of the prosecutor’s suspect examination, and there is insufficient proof that there is any doubts about the voluntariness in the police, and ③ each statement in the F’s investigative agency and the case subject to reexamination, despite the lapse of four years from the date of committing each of the facts charged in this case, may not be used as evidence of guilt.