The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the R hospital’s door-to-face storage CD (1~7, No. 53), a video recording product recorded by the police in the course of investigating the victim, and the two CDs (8, 9, and No. 61, respectively, referred to as “the entire CDs” in this case) were inadmissible. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the admissibility of the video recording product, thereby recognizing the admissibility of the instant video recording product.

나. 사실 오인 피고인은 자신이 운영하는 주점 내부에서 피해자와 다툼을 벌이다가 피해 자를 주점 밖으로 내보내기 위하여 피해자의 몸에 등유를 뿌리고 간이 영수증에 불을 붙여 위협한 사실은 있으나, 그 직후 간이 영수증에 붙은 불을 스스로 껐으며, 불이 붙은 간이 영수증을 피해 자의 몸에 대어 몸에 불이 붙게 함으로써 피해자를 살해한 사실은 없다.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (12 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle 1) In comparison with the provisions of Article 30(6) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes or Article 26(6) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, where the investigative agency newly set the video recording of the statements made by a person who is not a suspect by an investigative agency (hereinafter “Reference Person”) under the Criminal Procedure Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 8496 of Jun. 1, 2007, the contents of the current Criminal Procedure Act which limits the purpose of use to certify the substantial authenticity of the statements made by a reference person or to arouse the memory of a reference person, which recognizes independent admissibility of the statements made by a sexual offender included in the video recording, are differently provided for in other Acts.