All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Considering the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts), the facts charged of the instant case against the Defendants are fully recognized, in full view of the suspect interrogation protocol, each written guarantee of the identity and invitation letter of the police officer, and each legal statement of the invited person.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the foreign lives did not understand the lives of interpreters in the course of investigation, or that the lives did not interpret properly.

The Defendants did not recognize the actual authenticity of the entire protocol prepared in the course of investigation solely on the ground that they asserted that part of the statements were proved, and the remaining evidence alone was aware or could have known that the relevant invited person was entering the Republic of Korea for the purpose of domestic employment at the time of the preparation

For the reason that it is difficult to conclude this case’s charges, there is an error of misconception of the facts charged.

2. The lower court determined: (1) Each police interrogation protocol against the remaining Defendants, other than Defendant B, cannot be used as evidence to deny the content thereof; and (2) each police interrogation protocol against the invited person for S, T, R, V, W, X, X-Y, Q, the above protocol may not be used as evidence because the original person denied the actual authenticity in the court; (3) the police interrogation protocol against the invited person for U is deemed to have been present in a foreign country, and the police investigation against U was conducted under particularly reliable circumstances since the original person’s testimony appears to have been present in a foreign country; and (2) the police investigation against U was conducted under particularly reliable circumstances.

As it is difficult to recognize the above protocol as evidence, the above protocol cannot be used as evidence, and ④ Each protocol of interrogation of suspects against Defendant E and D by the prosecution also denies the actual authenticity of the above Defendants, and otherwise, it cannot be used as evidence because it did not submit objective methods to recognize the actual authenticity. The remaining evidence alone is sufficient.