The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 312 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies not only to cases where a protocol prepared by an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor is used as evidence of guilt to the accused, but also to cases where an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor adopts a protocol of examination of suspect to other accused or suspect who is in co-offender relation with the accused or suspect as evidence of guilt.

Therefore, even if a suspect interrogation protocol prepared by an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor for another suspect who has co-related relationship with the defendant is acknowledged as authentic by the suspect's legal statement and satisfies the requirements under Article 312 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it cannot be used as evidence for conviction unless the defendant denies the contents of the protocol at the trial date (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14409, Feb. 25, 2010). According to the records, the defendant was indicted as an accomplice of the facts charged in this case, and the defendant was indicted as evidence Nos. 5 (E), 20, 21, 22, 28, 29, 31 through 31 of the first public trial date of the first public trial of the first public trial, even though the defendant denied the contents of each protocol prepared by a judicial police officer, the court below acknowledged the suspect interrogation protocol as evidence on the ground that it had gone through the court's statement, etc.

Examining the above circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to admissibility of the protocol of interrogation of suspects prepared by a judicial police officer against an accomplice, thereby using the protocol of interrogation of suspects without admissibility as evidence of guilt, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal by the

However, even based on the evidence duly admitted as evidence, it is sufficient to find the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged. Therefore, the lower court’s error as above is erroneous.