The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the gist of the appeal by the prosecutor is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and erroneous facts as follows.

In light of the fact that the Defendant did not assert that not only was engaged in the investigation of the case subject to reexamination but also received the assistance of his/her defense counsel during the trial process, it is difficult to deem that there was a harsh act against the Defendant.

B. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s admissibility of the protocol of interrogation prepared by the prosecutor in light of the following: (a) the Defendant made a confession of all crimes at the first instance court of the case subject to review; (b) the first instance court denied the offense while continuing to make a confession on North Korea; and (c) it cannot be readily concluded that the state of hearing without voluntariness due to illegal confinement continued until the time of the investigation by the prosecutor; and (d) it is difficult to deny the decentralization of the Defendant’s educational background and ability

C. In the case subject to the Defendant’s review, the Defendant’s statement in the first instance court of the case subject to the Defendant’s review provided very specific and counsel with the content of the confessioning a crime in the court of first instance, and the appellate court did not assert harshly in the court, such as denying only the confidential North Korea facts, etc. In the appellate court, and consistently asserted that, in the appellate brief and the appellate brief, the Defendant consistently asserted that it is difficult to contact on the roof because he raised trees on the roof according to the method notified by the North Korean official in order to maintain the relationship with the North Korean official in question after entering the country, the lower court denied the Defendant’s statement even though the credibility of the Defendant’s statement in the

The admissibility of the seized articles, such as the check and the crypt method, was recognized in the case subject to review, and it is doubtful that the court below made a suspicion that the defendant was illegally detained and voluntarily produced.