The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) (the defendant's statement of victim D and E and witness F, which are all the shion non-shot guns, as evidence to support the facts charged of this case, exist. Among them, D and E's statements were in line with the paths, while she was in line with the shot guns from sheshed from shed, she would be aware that she would shoot the shot guns, and only she would directly shoot the defendant's shot guns.

In the first instance court, the witness examination was not conducted in F in order to constitute a core evidence, and thus the verdict of innocence was pronounced.

However, this case is a case where F is unable to confirm the facts unless the F appears in the court and testified, so it is necessary to summon F as a witness and clarify the facts.

2. Determination

A. The court below held that D, in relation to the injured part, was in compliance with D’s non-shot guns under the building C in this court, and the Defendant did not shot guns, and immediately after that, the Defendant viewed the Defendant on C’s rooftop, the Defendant cited a material at the same time, and that it was not smartphones.

the statement, D means that F and G were the Defendant’s shot gun;

In other words, the Decision Governing the Settlement

However, in light of the fact that such a statement cannot be used as evidence because it does not meet the requirements of Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the statement of police officers, such as the report of the occurrence of the case (the fifth page of the investigation record), cannot be used as evidence for the above reasons, etc., it is insufficient to recognize the fact that D's above statement alone is that the object used by the defendant was bombs, and D's bombs were bombs, and that D's bombs were bombs from the defendant, and that D's bombs were bombs, etc., it cannot be ruled out that D's bombs known from the third party, and it is insufficient to recognize the facts charged in this case by means of on-site and the