The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) of the police F’s statement in the lower court, which the lower court denied admissibility of evidence, is obvious that the Defendant’s statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances, and thus, admissibility of evidence is recognized. According to this, the Defendant’s statement in the lower court, as stated in the facts charged, may be recognized that it impairs the usefulness of

2. In full view of the circumstances stated in the judgment, the lower court found that the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor alone proves that the Defendant was damaged by a fire that was beyond reasonable doubt.

On the ground that it is difficult to see it, the lower court acquitted the instant charges.

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and otherwise there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor in the judgment below.

subsection (b) of this section.

① During the lower court’s statement in the police F’s original trial, the Defendant cited the fact that he misleads the Defendant.

"A statement made by a person other than the defendant at the trial date is the content of the defendant's statement," and its admissibility is recognized only when it is proved that the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances in accordance with Article 316 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, because the statement was made on the trial date of the person other than the defendant.

In this case, the Defendant denied the instant crime, and the Defendant had had the past record of being treated at a mental hospital, and had been sprinked by prescribing drugs at the mental hospital at the time of the instant case.

In light of the contents and attitude of the defendant's statement in the investigative agency, it seems that the mental state of the defendant was unstable at the time of the instant case, and F did not go through regular examination procedures such as notifying the defendant of his right to refuse to make statements at the time.