The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles as to admissibility of evidence, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the protocol of interrogation of suspect prepared by the police is inadmissible because the Defendant was not notified of the right to refuse to make statements. This part of the assertion did not specify whether it constitutes one of the grounds for appeal under Article 361-5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, in light of the purport of the assertion, this part of the assertion is to be determined by understanding that it is “when there is a violation of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea or the rules that affected the conclusion of the judgment” as stipulated by Article 361-5 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, namely, the assertion of misunderstanding

The defendant did not receive notification of the right to refuse to make statements at the time when he is investigated by the police, and the protocol prepared by the police to interrogate the suspect is inadmissible.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, one year of observation of protection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s determination on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to admissibility of evidence, namely, the Defendant’s and the defense counsel’s assertion that the police interrogation protocol for the Defendant was prepared without being notified of the right to refuse to make a statement, etc., under Article 244-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the second page of the Police Suspect Examination Protocol (Evidence No. 16 of the Evidence Record), and the Defendant marked his/her name on the “for example,” and affixed his/her seal,” and written his/her seal on the “for example,” and written the “not under the following items,” it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion that the police interrogation protocol for the Defendant was inadmissible because it was written without being notified of the right to refuse to make a statement. On the other hand, even if the Defendant excluded the suspect interrogation protocol, the remaining part of the Defendant duly adopted by the lower court.