The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the video file stored in CCTV video CDs submitted by the prosecutor (hereinafter “the instant file”) is admissible as evidence because artificial manipulation was not supported; and (b) the Defendant attempted to destroy evidence, such as video images of the said file or the process of detection of the instant case, and the early detection of cell phones after the crime, etc.; and (c) the circumstances after the Defendant committed the crime, which led to the destruction of evidence, can be acknowledged that the Defendant was not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, as described in the facts charged; (d) the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts based on which the admissibility of evidence is determined and facts constituting the basis for the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, as evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, states as evidence the following: (a) the police officer, with the consent of the owner of CCTV or manager of CCTV taken the images reproduced from CCTV devices at the time of the instant case, and then copied the files generated as a result to the police officer’s own computer, and then copied the CDs on the CDs again; (b) printed out the images taken by the police officer using a mobile phone camera with a specific page, rupture, rupture the CCTV screen, rupture the images produced as a image file (hereinafter “the images of this case”); and (c) made the F’s statement and internal investigation report (CTV verification related to the first CCTV device). The original files that were reproduced from CCTV devices were already deleted, and cannot be deemed identical to the original files in the instant case; and (d) there is no evidence to acknowledge the admissibility of the photograph and digital file as identical to the instant images.