The judgment below

Of them, the part of innocence on the provision of writingphones to B shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the provision of philophones as to B, the lower court excluded it from the adoption of evidence on the ground that the protocol of interrogation of the suspect as to B prepared by the prosecutor was investigated and prepared by the prosecution investigator, not the prosecutor, and it was not a protocol prepared in accordance with due process.

However, since prosecution investigators initially investigated B, but later confirmed the contents of the protocol directly by the prosecutor and followed the procedure to re-examine the contents, it should be viewed as a protocol of interrogation prepared by the prosecutor in accordance with due process.

Therefore, this part of the judgment below is erroneous in the violation of the rules of evidence.

② In addition, the Defendant and the Defendant consistently stated the circumstance leading up to the hotel, the body status of the principal after medication, the process of cutting off the bank, the process of reporting to the police, and the reaction to the training of phiphones as a result of the urine appraisal conducted by B, etc. In addition, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, but erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. With respect to the provision of philophones to E, where a person who does not administer philophones has administered philophones once, he/she may not be subject to a positive reaction. E statements from an investigative agency that he/she had consistently taken a philophones to his/her own arms using a philophone containing philophones, and thus, the Defendant can be recognized as having provided philophones.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

2. Determination as to the provision of philophones to B

A. On November 24, 2016, the Defendant of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged is the Defendant’s “clogramphone” in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Hotel (hereinafter “instant hotel”) D from a bitamopon around the new wall (hereinafter “cloopon”).