The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. Legal doctrine 1) The Defendant, misunderstanding the legal principles on the procedures for the seizure of voluntary submitted materials, was present at the public prosecutor’s office on December 14, 2014 and December 16, 2014 at the public prosecutor’s request, and printed out e-mail at the prosecutor’s request without a defense counsel and submitted it to the public prosecutor.

The e-mail output is a evidence that the prosecution collected from the defendant in the form of seizure of voluntarily produced articles without notifying the defendant the right to refuse to make statements and the right to assistance of counsel. Therefore, it is inadmissible as an illegally collected evidence lack of voluntariness.

On December 14, 2014, after the Defendant submitted the e-mail output, the Defendant’s consent and voluntary submission of the e-mail signed at the prosecutor’s request on December 14, 2014, and the self-written confirmation on December 16, 2014 also has no admissibility as evidence of illegal collection. Thus, the Defendant voluntarily submitted the

shall not be deemed to exist.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the procedure for seizing voluntarily produced articles.

2) The e-mail output in the misapprehension of the legal principles on professional rules is created by the prosecution’s printing out the e-mail server screen sent between the Defendant and H (H; hereinafter “H”) related persons for investigation purposes (the H officer and employee who exchanged the Defendant’s e-mail with the Defendant, and mainly refers to theO and N; hereinafter the same shall apply). The e-mail content constitutes the evidence that contains the conversation between the Defendant and those other than the Defendant, and should undergo an examination of evidence, not only the “written evidence” but also the evidence that applies by the specialized law.

As to the conversation between the people other than the defendant, the authenticity of the formation shall be recognized by the people concerned pursuant to Article 313(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the authenticity shall not be admissible because the authenticity is not recognized.

The court below held that the e-mail output produced by non-defendants.