The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. In a case where the establishment of the actual authenticity of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the defendant or his defense counsel is denied, the part denying the establishment of the said protocol should be specified in detail, but the defendants denied the establishment of the actual authenticity to the whole protocol without specifying it. Although the denial of the establishment of the actual authenticity cannot be deemed valid, it is unreasonable for the court below to recognize the admissibility of the evidence of each suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor as to the defendants.

B. R convalescent hospital (hereinafter “the instant hospital”) was established and operated by Defendant A, a non-medical person, employed Defendant C, a doctor, but Defendant C established and operated the said hospital.

Recognizing the facts charged, the lower court acquitted all of the charges of this case.

2. Determination

A. Article 312(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “A protocol in which the prosecutor made a statement of a criminal suspect who became the criminal defendant is admissible as evidence only when it is acknowledged by the criminal defendant’s statement at the preparatory hearing or on the trial date that the same contents as the criminal defendant stated are written, and it is proved that the statement recorded in the protocol was made under particularly reliable circumstances.”

“An actual establishment of a petition that the content of the protocol is written as stated by the Defendant in the original statement can be admitted as evidence.

At the same time, such substantial authenticity is recognized only by the defendant's statement at a preparatory hearing or on a trial date.

However, paragraph 2 of this article provides that "If the defendant denies the authenticity of the formation of the protocol notwithstanding paragraph 1, the statement recorded in the protocol is the same as the defendant stated.