The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal has no record of assaulting the victim;

In addition, the police officer in charge of investigation did not notify the defendant of the right to refuse to make statements, and the defendant did not confirm the contents of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the judicial police officer and signed and sealed the protocol, so the police interrogation protocol of the defendant is inadmissible as illegally collected evidence.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the admissibility of evidence of the police interrogation protocol of suspect interrogation by the police, namely, ① the defendant's investigation by the police on November 17, 2018, which is three days after the date of the occurrence of the case, stated the following facts and circumstances: (a) the defendant may not make any statement or make any statement about individual questions; (b) the defendant may not be disadvantaged even if he does not make any statement; (c) the statement which he has given up his right to refuse to make a statement may be used as evidence of guilt in court; (d) the statement stating the right to refuse to make a statement may be used as evidence of guilt; and (e) the statement stating that "I will be notified of the above rights," is written as "N" in the written confirmation stating that "I will not exercise the right to refuse to make a statement." (b) The police's interrogation protocol of the defendant contains the statement denying the defendant's criminal act; and (b) the defendant's statement to the effect that the defendant's statement is admitted to the protocol.