The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The seized philophone 0.58g 2013 type 30537, evidence.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (as to the part concerning the crime Nos. 1 and 3 of 2013 Godan6318 among the facts of crime), the Defendant did not sell phiphones to H, and even though he did not sell phiphones to J via K around May 26, 2013, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, so the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal ex officio, Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies not only to cases where an investigative agency other than the public prosecutor makes an interrogation protocol of the accused prepared as evidence of guilt, but also to cases where the interrogation protocol of the accused or the accused prepared by the investigative agency other than the public prosecutor is adopted as evidence of guilt against the accused or the accused.

Therefore, even if the protocol of interrogation prepared by investigation agency other than the prosecutor for another suspect who has co-related relation with the defendant, such protocol of interrogation as a suspect's legal statement is acknowledged, and satisfies the requirements of Article 312 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it cannot be used as evidence of guilt unless the defendant denies the contents of protocol on the trial date.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2865 Decided July 9, 2009). However, according to the records of this case, the defendant denied the contents of each police interrogation protocol (No. 2013Da6318, No. 29, No. 30, No. 37, and No. 42) of J and K, which are co-offenders, and thus, the above J and K denied the protocol of interrogation of police officers (No. 2013Da6318, No. 29, No. 30, No. 37, and No. 42). However, each police interrogation protocol of the above J and

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.