The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The prosecutorial protocol concerning the gist of the grounds for appeal concerning E shall be established by the testimony of the court below of the court below. According to this, the defendant shall be sufficiently recognized that he/she would have received unemployment benefits in collusion with E. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. The court below held that ① the police interrogation protocol against the defendant, ② the police interrogation protocol against E, and the police interrogation protocol against E are inadmissible as the defendant denies its contents (Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act), ③ the prosecutor interrogation protocol against E, and the witness E with respect to the interrogation protocol against the prosecutor's office, although the witness E expressed that the actual authenticity is recognized, “I would be able to receive unemployment benefits.”

There is no fact stating “.......”

"A person who has received unemployment benefits on his/her own," and "a person who has received unemployment benefits."

“The Prosecutor asked whether the Defendant was the Defendant’s mother or not, and asked whether the Defendant was the Defendant’s consent, and then asked whether the Defendant did not wish to help the Defendant.”

There was a friendly mind about the people.

The answer was made only by “...............”

In light of the fact that “,” etc. stated, it should be deemed as the statement denying the establishment of the actual petition, and it should be determined that there is no other objective method to acknowledge the admissibility of evidence and thus, it cannot be used as evidence

A thorough examination of records by comparison with the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

In addition, as the prosecutor asserts, the protocol of interrogation of suspect E is admissible as evidence.

Even if it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the E's testimony in light of the court below's testimony, and according to H's testimony in the court below.