The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal reveals that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, inasmuch as the CCTV video CD (Evidence Nos. 14 and 14, hereinafter “instant CD”) at the place of occurrence, which was used as evidence of guilt, was inadmissible, and the Defendant did not have stolen the wall from the victim’s vehicle, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged. In so doing

2. Determination

A. In the case of files, etc. containing an electronic document to determine whether to recognize the admissibility of the CD of this case, considering not only the signature or seal of the originator and manager, but also the risk of editing and manipulating the content by either the intent of the originator or manager or specific technology, if the content is proved to be the original or copied from the original, it shall be proven that it is a copy of the original without any artificial adaptation, such as editing in the duplication process, and if there is no such proof, it shall not be readily admitted as evidence.

In addition, the fact that a copy of an electronic document file submitted as evidence or a printed copy was reproduced and printed without any artificial reproduction, such as compilation in the course of duplication and printing can be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the testimony or statement by a person involved in the process of producing, delivering, and storing the copy of the electronic document file, the testimony or statement by a person involved in the process of producing, delivering, and storing the copy or printed copy, the comparison of the value at the sea immediately after the creation of the original or copy file,

The identity of such original constitutes the requirement for admissibility of evidence and the prosecutor must specifically assert and prove the existence thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do13263, Feb. 8, 2018). According to the witness H and E of the lower court, the video files contained in the CD in the instant case are reproduced through the CCTV reproduction device installed at the instant site with the consent of the Agricultural Cooperative Co., Ltd., the police owner.