The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, E, F, M, etc., the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the theft of boiler facilities listed in the facts charged, on the grounds that the admissibility or probative value of the above statement was denied, was erroneous and adversely affected by the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The defendant's defense counsel stated that the F and E did not constitute a conspiracy for F and E and the theft, claiming that the owner was identified before disposing of the boiler facilities to F and E, and that the owner did not receive consent from the owner thereof.

3. We examine the admissibility and probative value of the evidence submitted by the judgment prosecutor in turn.

A. Admissibility 1) Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies not only to cases where the interrogation protocol of the police interrogation protocol against F (Evidence No. 3, 12, 22, and 24) prepared by investigation agency other than the public prosecutor is used as evidence of conviction, but also to cases where the interrogation protocol of the accused or the suspect prepared by investigation agency other than the public prosecutor is adopted as evidence of conviction against the accused. The interrogation protocol of the interrogation protocol prepared by investigation agency other than the public prosecutor for the accused or the suspect who has co-offender relation with the accused or the suspect is acknowledged as evidence of conviction against the accused. Even if the authenticity of its establishment is recognized by the suspect's court statement, the admissibility is denied if the accused denies the contents of the protocol on the trial date (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Do7185, Jul. 15, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2015Do16184, Apr. 15, 2016).