The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The photograph files within CDs stored as evidence by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal (hereinafter “the instant photograph files”) are admissible as evidence because the creation date of the said files is the same as that of the Defendant’s crime date and do artificial editing and manipulations do not appear entirely.

Therefore, the lower judgment that acquitted the Defendant by denying the admissibility of evidence of the instant photographic file is erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. Of the evidence as to the facts charged of this case, the court below determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to prove the facts charged of this case, on the ground that: (a) in the case of CDs storing documentary evidence, it is not sufficient to recognize that the original copy was made by copying the original copy without any artificial adaptation, such as editing, in the process of making it a copy of the original copy taken at the time of the Defendant’s act; (b) it is not admissible as a derivative evidence; and (c) it is very low probative value as evidence to prove the Defendant’s specific act by uniformly preparing the same form and content as to a similar case; (c) the witness P and Q’s legal statement also was made by the police officer after taking over the original copy or the original file taken by photographing, and thus, it is hard to prove that there is no independent evidence as to the facts charged of this case.

B. While the lower court deemed that a video file was stored in a CD for storage of documentary evidence, the relevant CD appears to have been stored in light of the progress of the appraisal process upon the prosecutor’s request.

However, according to the testimony of the witness P of the lower court, P, etc., a police officer, etc., files taken from police station information at the time.