The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant made investments in D (hereinafter “D”) and did not encourage other investors of D to make investments. Although there was no participation in the act of fund-raising without being involved in the act of fund-raising without being involved, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

2. The court below decided ex officio as evidence of conviction of the facts charged of this case and used the police statement of G, which corresponds to the facts charged, as evidence. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the court below ex officio examined the admissibility of the above evidence.

Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that interrogation protocol of a suspect prepared by an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor shall be admitted as evidence only when the defendant who was a suspect or defense counsel acknowledged its contents at a preparatory hearing or a public trial date. If a document or document recording or recording a suspect's statement is prepared in the course of investigation into an investigative agency, it shall be admitted as evidence.

Even if it is not different from the interrogation protocol prepared by the investigative agency, and the above provision is not only a case where the interrogation protocol of the accused prepared by the investigative agency other than the prosecutor is used as evidence of guilt, but also a case where the interrogation protocol of the accused or the suspect prepared by the investigative agency other than the prosecutor is used as evidence of guilt against the accused (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6129, Oct. 25, 2007). The interrogation protocol of the police against G is admissible in accordance with Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act as long as the accused who has relation with G and accomplice denies