The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the statement by the victim of the summary of the grounds for appeal is sufficient to serve as evidence to reinforce the confession of the defendant, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that there is no evidence to reinforce the confession, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the evidence to reinforce the confession

2. Determination 1) The lower court rendered a judgment on the following facts: (a) the Defendant stated at the time of the police investigation to the effect that he was defending the victim by putting flapsing the franchis of the victim (the six pages of the investigation record); and (b) it can be viewed as a confession statement by complying with the contents of the facts charged; (c) however, there is no evidence to reinforce the said confession; (d) on the grounds that the confession constitutes evidence unfavorable to the Defendant, the lower court rendered

2) If the document or document recording or recording the suspect’s statement in the relevant legal principles is prepared in the course of investigation into an investigative agency, it was in the form of “written statement, written statement, or written statement”.

Even if a suspect is examined, it cannot be viewed differently from the protocol of interrogation.

The right to refuse to make statements by a suspect guaranteed by the Criminal Procedure Act is based on the right to refuse to commit an offense against himself/herself, which is not forced to make a statement unfavorable to himself/herself, which is guaranteed by the Constitution. Thus, in the event that an investigative agency does not notify a suspect of the right to refuse to make statements in advance in interrogation of a suspect, the suspect's statement should be denied the admissibility of evidence even if it is acknowledged as evidence illegally collected (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8213, Aug. 20, 2009). (B) In light of the above legal principles, the only direct evidence that conforms to the facts charged in the instant case is the protocol against the defendant, and this is the only direct evidence that conforms to the facts charged in the instant case is the protocol against the defendant, and after the defendant is summoned as the complainant's qualification,