The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below found the defendant not guilty of the above facts charged on the grounds that the E and D investigation agency and the court below's testimony, which correspond to the facts charged in this case, are admissible or credibility, are admissible, and the defendant does not agree to the admissibility of evidence, and it is hard to believe that the defendant's statement is not reliable, and thus, it is erroneous in the judgment of the court below which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that “the Defendant, from D, died of the kitchen knife and discarded the kitchen knife.”

They set forth.

The statements in E’s investigative agency and the court of original instance constituted the protocol in which the former testimony or the latter testimony was made. Since the Defendant did not agree to such testimony as evidence, it cannot be deemed as evidence of guilt, and the latter’s statement, which is another evidence, is not reliable, and not guilty on the grounds that there is no other evidence to prove the facts charged.

B. We tried to see that the Defendant was threatened with intimidation, first of all, D.

“The statement at the court of original instance and the police statement at the court of original instance of E related to E are the following: (a) the statement at the court of original instance of E and the statement at the police for E are that they were committed by the Defendant against D; (b) the statement at the court of original instance, not the statement at the court of original instance, but the protocol in which the statement at the court of original instance or the statement at the court of original instance or the statement at the court of original instance, was recorded; and (c) as long as D appeared and testified at the court of original instance, it is not admissible as it is not possible to satisfy the requirements

“E’s statement to the effect that it is insufficient to recognize the facts charged of this case.”

(c)

Next, the statements of D, which are other evidence corresponding to the facts charged of this case, are not consistent with the detailed statements of the court below.