The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The main evidence of this case is that the statement of O, P, M, O's statement, O's statement of arrest of the defendant at the office used for the criminal act of Bophishing, the Handphone base station used by the defendant and the defendant, and the results of examination of documents in which the pen book of the book of this case used for the criminal act of Bophishing is the same as the defendant's pen book, the court below rejected the prosecutor's order to submit the original book of this case and the prosecutor's statement of O, M, N's pen and the pen book of this case which cannot find relevance with the book of this case, and the prosecutor's order to submit the original book of this case without complying with it, and dismissed the prosecutor's request for examination of evidence against the defendant, and thereby, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to credibility and credibility of this case's book of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment without any reason.

Judgment

The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime except that (i) the investigative agency specified the date and time of the commission of the crime, the victim, and the amount of fraud by means of the details written in the instant pocket book and the details written therein; (ii) the existence and details of the instant pocket book; and (iii) the base stations used for the Defendant’s Handphones and Handphones used for the Handphones used at the time of the commission of the crime; and

There is no direct evidence to see, ② the Defendant asserted that he did not prepare the instant pocket book from the investigative agency to this court, and that he did not know it, and M, an accomplice, had contained the instant pocket book in the boxes brought by the Defendant and P.

One of the arguments, the place where the instant pocket book was discovered shall be scam by O.