The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Recording notes containing H’s statement of the gist of the grounds for appeal, and telephone recording CD constitutes evidence under Article 313(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and even if not, its admissibility can be recognized pursuant to Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, in light of the circumstances and overall circumstances of the dispute between H and E, the credibility of the statement made by H at the time of telephone conversation is higher than the legal testimony.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted the instant facts charged.

2. 1) The lower court held that the date of the written confirmation of the debt balance of the instant case is likely to have been completed retroactively, but it did not recognize the admissibility of a tape recording CD in which H’s statement was written, and other evidence alone proves that the instant facts charged were sufficiently proven.

The Defendant was acquitted on the ground that it was insufficient to view it.

2) There is doubt as to whether the date was retroactive in light of the appearance time and background of the letter of confirmation of the balance of the debt of this case recognized by the evidence duly investigated and adopted.

However, as set forth in the court below, the court below’s determination of admissibility of evidence should be made in accordance with Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, in light of the following: (a) the recording of and recording of the conversations made by the prosecutor while investigating H by telephone; and (b) the telephone recording CD as stated in the first head of Article 313(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, stating that “other than the preceding two Articles,” and Article 313(1) of the said Act constitutes “where information including the contents stated by a person other than the defendant, such as video, stored in the computer disc.”

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which held that the protocol of statement according to due process and method has not been prepared is inadmissible.