The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, destroyed the “list of owners of land, etc.,” which was provided by a union around May 24, 2018, and did not prepare a list of members of the instant association on the basis thereof.

The list of union members of this case, which was used by F to notify that F was held at around August 2019, was prepared and kept by identifying the names and addresses of union members by reading a certified copy of the register from 2014 by the joint proposal of the dismissed general meeting.

Nevertheless, the court below found the F guilty of the facts charged based on the police interrogation protocol and the remaining evidence that lack probative value. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles applies not only to cases where an investigative agency other than a prosecutor, other than the prosecutor, uses a protocol of examination of a suspect to the relevant defendant, which was prepared by the investigative agency, but also to cases where the protocol of examination of a suspect against another defendant or the suspect, which was prepared by the investigative agency other than the prosecutor, is adopted as evidence of guilt against the relevant defendant.

Therefore, even if the defendant satisfies the requirements of Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, such as the authenticity of the protocol established by the court statement of the suspect, a suspect interrogation protocol prepared by an investigative agency other than the prosecutor against another suspect who has an accomplice relation with the defendant cannot be used as evidence of conviction unless the contents of the protocol are denied at the trial date.

Article 312, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act requires the existence of a mutually advantageous act in addition to the co-offenders of the general provisions of the Criminal Code, and realizes the requirements for each of them.