The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the lower court’s judgment, the Defendant did not separately return the above evidence to the prosecutor’s office despite the lack of admissibility, and the above evidence influenced the formation of conviction conviction by the judge of the lower court. The lower court erred by misapprehending the law, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In the absence of assaulting a police officer F in front of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building 201 (hereinafter “Defendant’s house”) or boarding a police vehicle, the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in the instant case by misunderstanding the facts, even though he did not intend to obtain a police officer E’s face or threaten E in the D District, the lower court convicted him of the facts charged.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Since the evidentiary documents or articles of evidence not adopted as evidence due to the lack of admissibility of evidence as to the assertion of violation of laws and regulations are not submitted by the applicant for examination of evidence (Article 134(4) of the Criminal Procedure Rule), the principle is to return the submitted documents or articles of evidence when submitted. However, without such return procedure, the court kept the evidentiary documents or articles of evidence without admissibility.

Even if it is not admitted as evidence of guilt, such circumstance alone does not constitute a violation of procedural violation affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do124, Apr. 26, 2012). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, as alleged by the Defendant, did not return the protocol of interrogation of police officers against the Defendant, which was inadmissible.

Even if the record sent to this court is not accompanied by the "police interrogation protocol against the defendant" (the record is not accompanied by the "police interrogation protocol against the defendant) the court below should consider the above interrogation protocol as evidence of guilt.