The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Punishment of the crime

On April 21, 2017, at around 12:10, the Defendant paid the price of KRW 60,000 to the Defendant in the 2nd floor of the DMoel in Kim Jong-si, through smartphone-making app, and engaged in sexual traffic once by entering into a sexual traffic.

2. Determination

A. Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies not only to a case where an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor makes a protocol of interrogation of a suspect against the defendant in question as evidence of guilt, but also to a case where an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor adopts a protocol of interrogation of a suspect or a protocol of interrogation of a suspect against another defendant or a suspect who is co-offenders with the defendant, or a protocol of interrogation of a suspect against a co-suspect, which is prepared by an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor, as evidence of guilt against the defendant. Thus, even if a protocol of interrogation of a suspect prepared by an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor, its authenticity is denied if the defendant

In addition, an accomplice includes an native accomplice in addition to the co-offenders in consultation, such as a principal offender or an assistant offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6602, Nov. 26, 2009). (b) If a document or document recording or recording a suspect’s statement is prepared in the course of investigation into an investigative agency, even if such document or document is written in the form of a statement, a statement, a written statement, or a written statement, even though it was conducted in the course of investigation into the investigative agency (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3588, Sept. 3, 2004). According to the records of this case, E, as the counterpart to sexual traffic of the defendant, is in an in

As the defendant denies the contents of the police statement protocol (Evidence 10) against E, the police statement protocol against E is inadmissible in light of the above legal principles.

B. Ultimately, there is a legal statement of E in direct evidence that seems to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case.