The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including L/K’s statement in the investigation agency L/K’s summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below rejected the admissibility of evidence of the statement made in L/K investigation agency and acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, even if the facts charged in this case are sufficiently recognized that the Defendant delivered a promissory note likely to be defaulted to L and received goods at discount or obtained pecuniary benefits from J.

2. The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the requirements of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act were not satisfied with respect to statements made to L/K investigation agencies.

On the other hand, the court below testified to the effect that "Ha, K, P, and H brought K a bill at the place of delivery and transfer the insurance design P amounting to KRW 10,00,000 to K to the same as that of J's elementary school at the court of first instance," and that the testimony at H's court of court below is identical to this, ② L was present at the court of court of first instance to recognize its authenticity by recognizing its authenticity, and on the other hand, L was admitted the admissibility of the statement at the investigative agency by taking into account the circumstances in which "Ha, K, P, and H would have brought the bill to be investigated at the police station before the court of first instance and because there is no other evidence to prove the facts charged of this case."