The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant did not commit the same crime as the facts stated in the judgment of the court below, but the court below convicted the defendant, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal.

(1) The protocol of statement made by a public prosecutor and a person other than the defendant of the judicial police officer may be admitted as evidence when it is proven to be genuine by the person making the original statement at a preparatory hearing or at a public trial date. Thus, it is difficult to deem that the authenticity of the protocol of statement is proven, and the content of the statement in the protocol of statement is inconsistent with the fact (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do1865, 82Do383, Oct. 12, 1982). In a case where the original statement is admitted to have actual authenticity in the protocol of statement made by a public prosecutor or a person other than a suspect, the court should admit admissibility of evidence only for the protocol written by the prosecutor after specifically examining which part of the protocol is written by the original person and which part is written differently, and it should be denied with respect to other material authenticity.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1849 Decided June 10, 2005). However, according to the witness H’s statement statement among the third protocol of the trial of the court below, H made the prosecutor’s statement from the court of original instance and the police’s statement from the court of original instance with respect to H.