All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(1) A judicial police officer has not guaranteed the right to be present by a defendant in the course of urgent search of the vehicle of the defendant and articles inside the vehicle and issued a list of seized articles after the lapse of at least 20 days after the urgent search.

In addition, without obtaining a separate search and seizure warrant, the investigative agency has searched and printed out electronic information stored in the immediately seized criminal defendant's cell phone without obtaining a separate search and seizure warrant, and the judicial police officer did not guarantee the defendant's right to participate in the process, and did not issue a list of seized electronic information.

As above, there is illegality in the investigation procedure, and the violation constitutes an infringement of the substantive contents of due process, such as the violation of warrant requirement, and the result of appraisal, which is the second evidence obtained therefrom, is all inadmissible.

② The Defendant, as an authorized intermediary, went back to the scene in the vicinity of the victim’s residence in order to investigate the real estate sold, and discovered wallets inside the victim’s vehicle where the victim’s house was opened with the driver’s seat at the time when the victim’s house passes, and driven the victim’s vehicle on a dynamic basis, and did not interfere with the instant crime.

In particular, considering the following circumstances, the charges cannot be admitted only by the probative value of indirect evidence in this case where there is no direct evidence to prove the Defendant’s crime.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant by misunderstanding the facts.

The Defendant had consistently earned income through real estate brokerage around the time of the instant case, and even if based on the statement of the persons related to the same industry, the Defendant was considered due to the obligation accumulated in the Defendant.