The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Inasmuch as the substantive authenticity of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor against the defendant as to the summary of the grounds for appeal can be recognized, admissibility of the above suspect interrogation protocol should be recognized, and the defendant has dolusence that the amount delivered by the defendant is related to criminal proceeds.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court determined that the admissibility of evidence of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor was not available for the video recordings recorded in the examination process of the prosecutor's interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor, and that there was no scientific and objective data to the extent that the contents of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the defendant were identical to those stated by the defendant, and thus, it was impossible to recognize the admissibility of evidence of the prosecutor's interrogation protocol prepared by the defendant. 2) The defendant responded to most of the prosecutor's interrogation protocol prepared by the court at the court of the lower court as "for example," and even if it is not a flab, the prosecutor's statement "as soon as it was approved," and the prosecutor's statement "as it was stated, it is reasonable to view that the prosecutor's statement "at the time, it is true that the fact is not true, but it was low for the police investigation report."

In the court below and the court below, there was no video recordings recorded at the time of the preparation of the above interrogation protocol, and there was no scientific and objective data to the extent that the contents of the interrogation protocol were recorded the same as the defendant stated.

3.2