All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a protocol prepared by an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor may be admitted as evidence only when the defendant who was a suspect or defense counsel admitted the contents thereof at a preparatory hearing or at a public trial.

“......”

The above provision applies not only to the case where an investigative agency, other than a public prosecutor, prepared a protocol of suspect interrogation against the pertinent accused or suspect, as evidence of guilt, but also to the case where an investigative agency, other than a public prosecutor, adopted a protocol of suspect interrogation against other accused or suspect in relation to the pertinent accused or suspect as evidence of guilt (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1889, Oct. 15, 2009, etc.). In addition, the term "when recognizing its contents" in the above provision means not the meaning that the contents of the protocol of suspect interrogation are stated as the contents of the statement, but that the contents of the statement are consistent with the actual facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do5040, Jun. 24, 2010, etc.). (b) According to the record, the defendant C and G are denied the facts charged in this case by asserting that there is no consistent evidence with the court of first instance since the court below to the court below, and thus, the above Defendants did not recognize the contents of the protocol of suspect interrogation.

Therefore, in the evidence list in the record, the above defendants agreed to the police interrogation protocol against J at the second trial date of the first instance trial, and the defendant's consent to the police interrogation protocol of W at the fifth trial date of the first instance trial is erroneous in the protocol as "agreement" to recognize the fact that J and W had stated the same as the content of the protocol.