All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In addition to a simple daily conversation, the Defendant (a factual error or misapprehension of the legal principle) is unable to communicate in Korean language, but the police officers who received a report and received the report may refuse the Defendant’s voluntary movement at the time of requesting the Defendant to voluntarily act.

At the time of emergency arrest, the defendant did not notify the police officer of the gist of the offense, the reason for arrest, the right to appoint a defense counsel, the right to refuse to make statements in Korean.

Therefore, the voluntary behavior and emergency arrest against the defendant are illegal, and the evidence collected by the investigation agency through the illegal voluntary behavior and arrest is not admissible because it violates the due process.

In addition, the police did not deliver the list of seizure to the defendant in the course of the seizure of the seized article, and in particular, issued a translation of the list of seizure or through an interpreter at the site, and sufficiently explain the content of the list to the defendant through the interpreter and did not receive the individual signature

Therefore, seized articles presented as evidence are inadmissible.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by comprehensively taking account of the evidence illegally collected and inadmissible. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The prosecutor (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) of the lower judgment is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant is based on the following: (a) the Defendant interviewed with the Defendant’s defense counsel in relation to the assault case that the Defendant became a victim by taking account of the following: (b) each recording record (Evidence Nos. 61, 64 of the evidence list, and the result of the reproduction of sound recording CDs; (c) but (d) interviewed with the Defendant’s mother-child after meeting with the Defendant.