The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (a fine of four million won) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Prior to determining the grounds for appeal by the ex officio determination prosecutor, we examine the admissibility of “a protocol of suspect examination of the police officer against D” presented as evidence of guilt by the lower court.

Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies not only to the case where an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor makes an interrogation protocol of the relevant accused as evidence of guilt, but also to the case where an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor makes an interrogation protocol of other accused or suspect who has co-offender relations with the relevant accused as evidence of guilt against the relevant accused. The interrogation protocol of the investigative agency other than a public prosecutor on other suspect who has co-offender relations with the relevant accused is acknowledged by the suspect's court statement, if the relevant accused denies the contents of the protocol on the trial date, the admissibility of evidence is denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Do7185, Jul. 15, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2008Do5189, Sept. 25, 2008). According to the record of the instant case, the court below informed the suspect interrogation protocol of the fact that D was prepared as evidence of the interrogation protocol of the suspect, which was prepared by the prosecutor, 2000 20.g.

However, in light of the above legal principles, D is above the court.