The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal presented by the prosecutor as evidence, the video files in CDs (hereinafter “the video files of this case”) cannot be seen as having been admissible as evidence because they did not appear in a trace of artificial editing operations, and thus, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant by denying the admissibility of evidence of the video files of this case is unlawful since the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. Of the evidence on the facts charged of this case, the lower court determined that: (a) in the case of documentary evidence, it is insufficient to recognize that the original copy was made by copying the contents of the original without any artificial adaptation, such as compilations, in the process of creating the original copy recorded at the time of the Defendant’s act; and (b) each documentary evidence output is not admissible as derivatives that cut out the images stored in the CD; and (c) the written statement of N andO is uniformly prepared in the same form and content as in the similar case; (d) the police officer’s statement and written statement of M are written in the same manner and content as in the similar case; (c) there is no mentioning of the contents of the Defendant’s specific act, and (c) there is very low probative value as evidence to prove the Defendant’s specific act; and (d) the witness P, Q, and R’s written statement in each of the court records were made by a police officer or a police officer’s statement that made a copy into a CD or printed out a closed photograph.

B. Examining the above determination by the lower court in addition to the following circumstances revealed by the records of this case, the instant images were reproduced from the original recorded in the field situation at the time, and are compilations in the duplication process.