The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged: (a) on April 14, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 65,000 to the owner of the business from “E” located on D2, Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to the owner of the business; and (b) entered the room No. 6 of the above business establishment and carried out commercial sex acts by way of F and kis, who were female employees, and F and F’s sexual intercourse with their hand and the Defendant’s sexual intercourse.

2. As evidence consistent with the above facts charged, the F’s statement (No. 19 page of the evidence record No. 2), F’s police interrogation protocol (No. 2 book No. 35 of the evidence record), the second police interrogation protocol against F (No. 2 book No. 130 of the evidence record), the Defendant’s phone call to E (No. 85, No. 93, No. 95 of the evidence record), some of the witness F’s legal statements.

However, as examined below, each of the above evidence is inadmissible, or it is not sufficient to recognize the above facts charged in light of the witness F’s witness F’s legal statement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above facts charged.

A. Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies not only to a case where an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor makes a protocol of interrogation of a suspect against the defendant in question as evidence of guilt, but also to a case where an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor adopts a protocol of interrogation of a suspect or a protocol of interrogation of a suspect against another defendant or a suspect who is co-offenders with the defendant, or a protocol of interrogation of a suspect against a co-suspect, which is prepared by an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor, as evidence of guilt against the defendant. Thus, even if a protocol of interrogation of a suspect prepared by an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor, its authenticity is denied if the defendant

In addition, one accomplice includes an accomplice in addition to the co-offenders in consultation, such as a principal offender or an aiding and abetting offender (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6602, Nov. 26, 2009, etc.). Also, the document or document in which I have recorded or recorded the statement of the suspect.