All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the admissibility of documents printed from digital storage media

A. In order to use documents printed out from a digital storage medium, which is the admissibility of evidence pursuant to Article 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as evidence, the identity of the documents stored in the digital storage medium and the documents printed out should be recognized. To this end, it should be guaranteed that the original documents were not changed from the seizure to the printing out of the documents.

In addition, in cases where documents printed from seized digital storage media are used as statements evidence, the hearsay rule is applied to the authenticity of the contents recorded, so it may be used as evidence only when it is proved to be genuine by the maker or his/her testimony at a preparatory hearing or during a public trial pursuant to Article 313(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7257 Decided December 13, 2007, etc.). The lower court determined that the hearsay rule applies to the authenticity of the contents stated in the evidence list submitted by the prosecutor, Nos. 157, 158, and 414 (hereinafter “BK USB documents”), Nos. 111, 111, 132, 208-5, 208-6, 208-7, 208-7, 208-9, 208-9, 208-10 (hereinafter “C computer detection documents”), evidence list No. 148-2 (hereinafter “B-e-mail attached documents”), evidence list No. 426, 427 (hereinafter “LB documents”), and each of the above documents cannot be admitted as admissibility of evidence for any reason other than the establishment of documents by the testimony of Defendant A or B at a preparatory hearing and public trial.

The judgment below

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is a ground for appeal.