The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the admissibility of the first police suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant A, Defendant E, I, H, J, C, F, G, M, L, and B, each of the first police suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant A (excluding each part of the interrogation; hereinafter “first protocol”)

A. The right to refuse to make statements by a suspect under the Criminal Procedure Act is based on the right to refuse to make statements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do682, Jun. 23, 1992; 2008Do8213, Aug. 20, 2009); and Article 244-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, amended by Act No. 8496, Jun. 1, 2007, to substantially guarantee the right to refuse to make statements, a public prosecutor or judicial police officer shall inform a suspect of matters, such as “the suspect fails to make a single statement or fails to make a statement about individual questions” (Article 1). Article 12(2) provides that “When a public prosecutor or judicial police officer notifies a suspect pursuant to paragraph (1), he/she shall exercise his/her right to refuse to make a statement, ask a suspect whether the suspect refuses to make a statement, give answers to the suspect’s answer to the right to refuse to make a statement or answer to the suspect.”

Meanwhile, Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the protocol prepared by investigative agencies other than prosecutor should be prepared in accordance with the due process and method to recognize the admissibility of suspect interrogation protocol prepared by investigative agencies."

In this context, "legal procedures and methods" are all the procedures prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Act, such as notification of the right to refuse to make a statement to a suspect in the course of preparing a protocol.