All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant withdrawn the assertion of mistake of facts on the first trial date.

The punishment of the court below (two months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. (1) The court below's decision to exclude the prosecutor's suspect interrogation protocol as to the defendant and B prepared by the prosecutor is improper.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below held that the prosecutor's assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principle is that Article 243 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the prosecutor shall have an investigator or clerk of the prosecutor's office who examines the suspect," but among the evidence requested by the prosecutor, the suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecutor prepared by the defendant, B (the fifth confrontation) is evidence prepared in violation of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, and the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor with the defendant, B, and related persons examined also with the defendant, B, and the prosecutor's protocol prepared by the prosecutor is insufficient to recognize that the protocol was prepared through legitimate investigation procedure. On the other hand, the court below found the defendant guilty of the whole charges on the defendant based on the defendant's partial statement of the second trial record of the court below other than the evidence whose admissibility is denied

The court's decision on whether to adopt a party's application for examination of evidence does not have any other way to appeal except for the case where the court's decision on the procedure prior to the judgment is related to the trial procedure prior to the judgment, but it can only be used as a ground for appeal in case where the facts have an influence on the judgment due to mistake of facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do646, Jun. 8, 190). The court below found the defendant guilty of all the charges based on the remaining evidence duly adopted and investigated.