The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. If a document or a document stating a suspect's statement is prepared in the course of investigation in an investigative agency, it cannot be viewed differently from a suspect interrogation protocol even if it was prepared in the form of "written statement, written statement, and written statement". Meanwhile, the suspect's right to refuse to make statements guaranteed by the Criminal Procedure Act is based on the right to refuse to make statements, which is unfavorable to the criminal suspect himself/herself guaranteed by the Constitution, and thus, if the investigative agency did not notify the suspect of his/her right to refuse to make statements in advance while questioning the suspect, the suspect's statement should be denied even if it is acknowledged that the statement has

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8213, Aug. 20, 2009). Moreover, it is reasonable to view that the status of a suspect subject to notification of the right to refuse to make statements by an investigative agency is recognized when the investigation agency deemed the person subject to investigation as having been suspected of having committed a crime and actually commences the investigation even before the investigation agency takes a formal procedure for acceptance of a case, such as preparing

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do2968, Oct. 26, 2001; 2010Do8294, Nov. 10, 201). In particular, in cases where the contents of the statement made by a person subject to investigation do not merely relate to a third party’s crime, but is related to a crime jointly related to himself/herself and a third party, or is related to a third party’s suspected crime, as well as the fact that he/she has the nature of the protocol of suspect examination, the investigative agency should notify the person subject to investigation of his/her right to refuse to testify prior to hearing the statement.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do7098 Decided May 28, 2009 and Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9127 Decided March 10, 201, etc.). 2. The lower court stated in its reasoning.