The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. There is proof to the extent that there is reasonable doubt as to the fact that the statement recorded in the police interrogation protocol against E was made under particularly reliable circumstances as provided in Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Since it is insufficient to recognize E, the protocol of interrogation of suspect in the police for E is inadmissible.

Nevertheless, the first instance court recognized the admissibility of evidence of the interrogation protocol of the police suspect E under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Such judgment of the first instance court contains an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the special status, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the difference between C and D’s statement and E’s statement on the background leading up to the arrival of the Defendant, the fact that there is no evidence such as a photograph of the assault, etc., and the witness J’s legal statement in the first instance trial, etc., each statement made by C and D is difficult to believe ( even if the Defendant appears to have been on an equal basis with the victims, this constitutes a considerable act to escape from the unilateral assault of the victims and constitutes a legitimate defense). Nevertheless, the first instance judgment that convicted the Defendant by each of the above statements, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous.

(c)

The sentence sentenced by the first instance court of sentencing (500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to admit admissibility of evidence pursuant to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court’s judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles is not sufficient simply because there is no obvious procedural error in the process of preparing the relevant statement or protocol or there is no specific circumstance to suspect the voluntariness of the statement. Furthermore, there are specific and external circumstances that sufficiently guarantee the credibility and voluntariness of the statement even without undergoing verification through cross-examination, etc. in the court.