All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) recorded files (No. 50-1 of the evidence list submitted by the prosecutor; hereinafter “the recording file of this case”) and recording (no. 51-1 of the same list; hereinafter “the recording file of this case”) are admissible and probative value (1) since illegal seizure of the recording file of this case and the recording file of this case is a separate subject of seizure separate from the information storage device, if the storage device was voluntarily produced, the intent of voluntary submission for individual electronic information subject to seizure should be recognized.

The recording file of this case is electronic information stored in a mobile phone voluntarily produced by X to the police. Since X was unaware of the fact that the recording file was stored in the cell phone at the time of voluntary submission by the police, it cannot be deemed that there was a intention to voluntarily submit the recording file of this case.

Nevertheless, there was no separate submission or execution of a warrant with respect to the recording file of this case, and there was no preparation of a seizure protocol and no preparation and delivery of a seizure list.

Therefore, the recording file of this case is not admissible as it falls under illegally collected evidence, and the recording of this case based on this is also inadmissible.

(B) Since the recording file of this case in violation of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act was recorded between others that are not disclosed, it is in violation of Article 3(1) of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, the recording file of this case and the recording record of this case based on it are inadmissible.

(2) The Defendant and X call content indicated in the instant recording files and records of probative value of the instant recording files and records do not purport to instruct X to provide money and goods to U, V, but rather to the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant sent money and goods to U and V from X.