2013No501 A. Fraud

B. Attempted Fraud

(c) Forgery of private documents;

(d) Exercising a falsified investigation document;

E. Violation of the Trademark Act

(f) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

1.(a)(c) A;

2.(a)(c)(d)(f) B;

3.(d)(f) D

4.(c)(d) E;

Defendant A, B, D, and Prosecutor (Defendant A, B, and E)

Freeboard Kim Woo (Court of Prosecution) and Lee Jong-soo (Court of Justice)

Attorney AZ (the national line for the defendant A)

Attorney BA (for the defendant B)

Attorney BB (the national election for defendant D)

Law Firm M, Attorney N (Defendant E)

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2012 Godan2559 Decided April 4, 2013

August 2, 2013

The convictions against Defendant A, B, and D in the judgment of the court below shall be reversed. The punishment against Defendant A shall be two years of imprisonment, the punishment against Defendant B shall be imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and the punishment against Defendant D shall be ten months of imprisonment with prison labor.

However, the execution of the above sentence against Defendant B and D shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive. The seized sentence against Defendant B shall be confiscated from Defendant B, and ten 10 bits (No. 5) shall be confiscated from Defendant B, respectively. Of the facts charged against Defendant A, the fraud related to the supply of the video analysis equipment to the National Institute of Fisheries and Fisheries, among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A, the fraud related to the supply of the video analysis equipment of the National Institute of Fisheries and Fisheries awarded a successful bid on June 1, 201, among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant B, the fraud related to the supply of the video analysis equipment of the National Institute of Fisheries and Fisheries and the fraud related to the supply of the video analysis equipment of the video analysis equipment of the National Institute of Fisheries and the facts charged against Defendant B of the instant case against Defendant D, each of the facts charged against Defendant D related to fraud related to the supply of the goods awarded on June 1, 2011.

The prosecutor's appeal on the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below (the non-guilty part of the facts charged in this case against Defendant A is dismissed. The non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below (the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below 5 parts of the CTB bicycle test report of Defendant A of this case, the attempted fraud related to the delivery of a diving pulmonary equipment among the facts charged in this case against Defendant B, and the infringement of the trademark rights of the SCUBAPO

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

Although the defendant should be acquitted for the following reasons, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby convicted the defendant.

(A) The attempted fraud related to the supply of swimming clothes, which was awarded on November 1, 201, by the Army Special Power Headquarters (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Power Headquarters”) and the infringement of ARENA trademark rights.

The defendant knew that China's factory manager, who manufactured the swimming uniform, can attach ARENA trademark, was in the absence of a problem. The location of the swimming uniform was LYCRA located, and there was no false supply performance certificate certificate, supplier certificate certificate, or test report from the defendantB, etc.

(B) The attempted fraud related to the supply of the Maritime Headquarters blood sponsor and the charge of forging and holding product information labels.

Although the Defendant did not deliver to Defendant B the product information labels, the Defendant supplied the product information labels to Defendant B, and did not participate in the delivery of the product information labels by forging them.

(C) Frauds related to the supply of video monitors of the National Fisheries Research Institute

Defendant supplied a normal product, and there is no fact that Defendant B, etc. issued a false supplier certificate, a false manufacturer certificate, and a false certificate of warranty for manufacturing and repair. Moreover, it is unreasonable to punish Defendant B, etc. as fraud on the ground that a seller, not a manufacturer, prepares a normal certificate of good supply for products.

(D) Attempted frauds related to the supply of the electronic scamba for the detection of burials at the Army Headquarters.

Although the Defendant was an incomplete product, the Defendant, etc. made efforts to deliver the product, and was carried out to waive the contract, the Defendant did not actively commit a tort in order to actually supply the product or to pass the examination process.

(E) Frauds related to the supply of bicycles at the Navy.

The defendant was unaware of the defect in the bicycle supplied to the defendant D.

(f) On June 1, 201, the point of fraud related to the supply of special pre-paid clothes awarded by a successful bidder

The Defendant, using the LYCRA’s materials, produced a normal swimming uniform, but only omitted the attachment of a tag verifying the existence of the LYCRA’s materials. The mere fact that the tag was not attached cannot be said to constitute fraud.

(G) The fraud related to underwater cleaning robot supply, AS guarantee certificate, and the completion certificate, and the points of the completion of the education, of the City Management Corporation.

The defendant supplied a good that does not have any problem as a good, and there is no fact that C arbitrarily prepared a AS Guarantee and a completion certificate and issued an order to deliver it.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

Although the defendant should be acquitted for the following reasons, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby convicted the defendant.

(A) On November 1, 201, the attempted fraud with respect to the supply of special prestigious clothes awarded on November 1, 201 and the violation of AREN trademark rights

The Defendant was unaware of the fact that the swimming clothes supplied by the Defendant A were defective products, and the ARENA trademark attached to the swimming clothes was also fake. Although it was true that the Defendant prepared a false certificate of supply performance and responded to the tender, it cannot be said that there was a deception to the extent that the Defendant would be subject to criminal punishment.

(B) The attempted fraud related to the supply of the Maritime Defense Headquarters blood sprinkers

Since the defendant is true about the problem of the product to the officer of the Navy headquarters, which is the demand source, the defendant cannot be said to have committed a deceptive act.

(C) Frauds related to the supply of video monitors of the National Fisheries Research Institute

The Defendant supplied the fixed goods to the demand source. The submission of documents, such as the supplier certificate and the repair guarantee certificate, to the manufacturer is not necessarily required. Even if there is any problem in the documents to be submitted, it cannot be said that there was a deception, since there was no problem in the products.

(D) Attempted frauds related to the supply of the electronic scamba for the detection of burials at the Army Headquarters.

Since the goods supplied by the Defendant A were too much vague, the Defendant expressed his intention to waive the supply to the demand source. However, the Defendant talked in advance that the goods were disposed of due to an impossibility of operation after a brief inspection between the tallyman and the tallyman, and was not attempted to induce the demand source.

(e) The point of joint intrusion of buildings (a special warehouse of the Incheon Coast Guard station)

In relation to the use of the above warehouse, the defendant entered the company's company's permission from the director of the AI of the Incheon Regional Police Agency, and the defendant did not make a false statement to AK of the special military police station of Incheon, or intrude into the warehouse against the will of the manager of the warehouse.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. Defendant D

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to fraud in relation to the supply of special pre-service clothes awarded on June 1, 201

The Defendant supplied a normal swimming uniform without any problem. The Defendant attempted to supply a swimming uniform without the test report because he had a record of the supply of the swimming uniform to the Defendant, and the first time had been unaware of the fact that he had to submit the test report, but he was pointed out by the tallyman and temporarily stored the swimming uniform, and then supplemented and submitted the test report. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have deceiving the demand source. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or convicted the Defendant.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

D. Prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the acquittal portion of Defendant A, B, or E)

For the following reasons, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of each of the following facts charged, but acquitted the Defendants by either misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(1) Of the facts charged against Defendant A, as long as it is clearly acknowledged that Defendant A, D, and E conspiredd with Defendant A to supply low-price bicycles among the facts charged against Defendant A, it is inconsistent with the doctrine that Defendant A alone committed the forgery of the test report, which is an incidental deceptive act in the process. Defendant A and E, as a matter of course, should be deemed to have been aware of the fact that the safety inspection would be conducted, the failure would be judged, and that the supply could not be conducted in the state where the failure was judged. As such, it is reasonable to view that Defendants A and E had been aware of the fact that the Defendants conspired and conspired to commit the forgery and use of the test log.

(2) Of the facts charged against Defendant B, the attempted fraud related to the diving supply of divings and infringement of the trademark right of SCUBAPO

Of the evidence not admitted by the court below for lack of admissibility, the recording of the conversation between Defendant D and AV was recognized that Defendant D and AV, the original person making the original statement, are recorded as their contents of statement on the trial date of the court below, and it was recognized that the recording of the original recording as it is without any artificial opening, and thus, it may be admitted as evidence against Defendant B, and according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the recording of this recording, it may be sufficiently convicted of this part of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants

(1) On November 1, 201, Defendant A and B’s assertion as to the attempted fraud related to the supply of special prestigious clothes awarded on November 1, 201, and violation of AREN trademark rights

(A) The judgment of this part of the judgment above is made by the prosecutor ex officio prior to the trial, the last sentence of this part of the facts charged, which is the "ARENA" which is the last sentence of this part of the charges, infringed the trademark rights of the 'ARENA' company registered by the conspiracy of the defendants to manufacture the 'ARENA' trademark, and the 'the 'ARENA' company's trademark rights were violated by deceiving the 'ARENA' company from the 'ARENA' company as if the 'ARENA' trademark was a passive uniform meeting the contract terms and conditions, and the 'the 'the 'ARENA' company' was attempted to obtain 80 million won from the 'ARENA' company, but attempted to obtain 'ARENA' trademark from the 'ARENA' company,' which is the part of this part of the charges, and the 'ARENA' company's amendment to indictment to this part of this part of the judgment below is no longer justified.

(B) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined at the lower court, ① the head office of AREF, the Defendant’s head office of B/L, which was sent to B/L companies, for the following reasons: (i) the Defendant’s submission of a false sample to B/L to B/L companies; and (ii) the Defendant’s delivery of a uniform to B/L companies, which is an employee of the same type of business, is not a barb, but a half of the A/L market. The Defendant’s statement that the Defendant’s 2/L market was not the Defendant’s delivery of a uniform to B/L companies, and that the Defendant’s delivery of a uniform to B/L companies was not the Defendant’s delivery of a false sample to B/L companies (the Defendant’s delivery of a uniform to B/L companies) and that the Defendant’s delivery of a uniform to B/L companies was not the Defendant’s delivery of a false sample to B/L companies (the Defendant’s delivery of a false sample to B/L companies).

(2) Regarding Defendant A, B, and Defendant A’s assertion on the charge of attempted frauds related to the supply of the Maritime Defense Headquarters Blood Co., Ltd., and the charge of forging and exercising product information labels

The following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below, i.e., (1) the reason for supplying the used goods is that Defendant A was in good condition, and even beyond the production year and the trial period, Defendant B’s statements (No. 4219-420 pages of the investigation records, No. 481 of the trial records), and (2) the Defendant’s statement at the prosecutor’s office and the court below’s office (No. 481 of the investigation records, No. 481 of the trial records), were confirmed that the supply of the used goods was not possible, and that there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles, and that the Defendants did not supply the used goods in order to identify the supply price of the used goods, and that there was no error of the facts that Defendant A would have been so far known, and that there was no difference in the supply condition of the used goods to Defendant A’s new equipment that had been produced during the 6-year period of delivery.

(3) As to the Defendant A and B’s assertion on the fraud related to the supply of video analysis technicians of the National Fisheries Research Institute

(A) This part of the facts charged

Defendant A and C were awarded a bid price of KRW 4,1710,00 (hereinafter referred to as “StateU”) under the name of Defendant B’s 4,1710,000 (hereinafter referred to as “StateU”) on March 10, 201, for a bid bid of KRW 444,00,00,000, which is operated by Defendant B, through a national fisheries research institute (hereinafter referred to as “National Fisheries Research Institute”)’s publication of a tender, such as video liter, etc., at the national fisheries research institute. Defendant B and C were awarded a bid price of KRW 17,272,728,00 (hereinafter referred to as “CU”) on March 10, 201.

The above supply contract provides that the ‘tender notice' must submit a certificate of manufacture repair guarantee and a certificate of good supply, and requires the supplier to submit a certificate of good supply during the delivery process.

Nevertheless, Defendant A purchased a video analysis device at a low price in that it is the regional agent of Japan, which is not the Korea OYMP US, and Defendant A, despite the fact that there is no relationship with the OYMP US General Markets, Defendant B and C had Defendant B and C prepare a false supplier certification certificate that the “P” operated by Defendant A is an OLYMP USS company as if it were the OLYMP US company's total team, and the “P” prepares a false supplier certification certificate that the “P” guarantees quality.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to supply the above video analysis apparatus purchased by Defendant A and, as such, deceiving the National Fisheries Science Institute as if they were to satisfy the contractual terms and conditions, and acquired KRW 17,272,728 from the Victim Procurement Service around July 201.

(B) The judgment of the court below

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by taking account of the relevant evidence.

(C) Judgment of the court below

In fraud, deception refers to the act of making another person mistake, but it cannot be said that there was a deception immediately by simply making another person mistake, and at least it should reach the extent that it goes against the good faith principle in the transactional relationship. Therefore, even though the other party's mistake is omitted, if it does not interfere with the achievement of the purpose of the transaction, it is difficult to view that there was a deception for the establishment of fraud.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, Defendant B supplied video monitors purchased by Defendant A at a local agency of Japan’s OYP US, and the fact that Defendant B, at this time, submitted a supplier certificate and a repair guarantee certificate in the name of P by pretending that Defendant A’s P was an OYMUS’s total Asian sales without submitting a supplier certificate or a supply guarantee certificate.

However, in light of the following circumstances that can be recognized based on the above evidence, i.e., the video analyzing machine of this case supplied by the Defendants appears to be a normal product ice, i.e., the quality assurance certificate (the investigative record No. 2675 of the investigation record) of the OYMPUSS company, which is the manufacturer, also submitted to the demand source; ii) the South East East Sea Research Institute of Korea, which is the demand source, did not have any special features in the video cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp crys through fact inquiry inquiry at the court below.

Therefore, even though this part of the facts charged against Defendant A and B constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(4) As to the Defendant A and B’s assertion on attempted fraud related to the supply of the electronic inland Scamer for the detection of burialers at the Army Headquarters

The following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (1) Defendant B’s request for inspection of “wholly manufactured goods” by sending several official announcements to the demand source for the supply of the electronic crynasium (213,1246 pages of the investigation record). (2) During this process, the demand source submitted the test report that satisfies the tender announcement quantity and submitted the certificate, i.e., the defect in shipping, i., why he did not accept even if he did not accept it (1244 pages of the investigation record), i.e., (2) Defendant B’s request for inspection of the electronic crynas in the instant case supplied by Defendant B, and (3) Defendant B’s final treatment on March 30, 2012, the Defendants failed to comply with the contract terms and conditions, and thus, attempted to be aware of the above parts of the facts charged and attempted not to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be found to be 10 or 20).

(5) 해군군수사령부 자전거 납품 관련 사기의 점에 대한 피고인 A의 주장에 관하여원심에서 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 따라 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① MTB 자전거에 사용된 기어가 입찰공고에서 요구한 사양인 정품 시마노 기어가 아니라 제조사 불명의 저가 기어였던 점(수사기록 제1876쪽), ② CTB 자전거의 기어는 7단 변속기어가 아니라 사양에 부합하지 않는 6단 기어였고, 피고인 A도 처음부터 이를 알고 있었던 점(수사기록 제4297~4298쪽), ③ "피고인 A에게 자전거가 안전검사에 불합격되었다는 이야기를 하며 다시 보내라고 하였더니 피고인 A이 '돈이 없다, 군인들이 뭘 알겠느냐, 그냥 납품해라'라고 하였다"는 D의 검찰과 원심에서의 진술(수사기록 제4170~4172쪽, 공판기록 제533쪽), ④ 이들 자전거가 군부대에 납품된 후 불과 몇 개월만에 자전거 브레이크, 기어, 핸들, 바퀴 등의 여러 부위에 다양한 하자가 광범위하게 발생한 것으로 보고된 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인의 위 사실오인 내지 법리오해 주장은 이유 없고, 피고인이 입찰공고에서 요구하는 사양에 미치지 못하는 저가품에 불과한 자전거를 납품하면서 마치 계약 조건을 충족하는 자전거인 것처럼 수요처를 기망하여 그 대금 상당액을 편취하였다는 이 부분 공소사실을 충분히 유죄로 인정할 수 있다.

(6) On June 1, 201, Defendant A and D’s assertion as to fraud related to the supply of special pre-trial clothes awarded on June 1, 201

(A) This part of the facts charged

Defendant A was awarded a successful bid in the name of X operated by Defendant D on June 1, 201 with respect to “the tender notice, such as swimming clothes, etc., from a special power plant, to a level equivalent to KRW 36 million,” and Defendant D was awarded a successful bid in the name of X operated by Defendant D on June 1, 201 with respect to “the special power plant, the number of goods, the number of goods, the number of goods, the number of goods, the number of 1,500 head, the number of water 1,00 head, the number of water 1,000 head, and the basic amount of KRW 42,534,500.”

The above supply contract was limited to qualification for participation as an enterprise which has had the record of supplying the products equal to or higher than the swimming uniform, and according to Article 13 of the General Conditions for the Purchase of Goods (Manufacture) established by the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, the goods must be supplied with solid and non-kepted goods meeting the purpose of purchase, customs, technical feasibility, purchase specifications, etc., and the goods must be attached to the original functional part in accordance with the "Special Conditions for the Manufacture/Purchase Contract," and the government agency should submit the test report of the manufacturer in the case of overseas goods. Although Defendant D participated in the bidding and participated in the bidding even though he had not previously received the delivery report, Defendant A was awarded a successful bid of KRW 3,654,00 in the name of X, and Defendant A did not deliver the goods to the above government agency without being aware that the goods were manufactured and attached to the above manufacturer's equipment, without being in conformity with the aforementioned production report.

As a result, the Defendants conspired, as if they were to fulfill the contractual terms and conditions, deceiving the victim's specialty, thereby deceiving the victim from the victim on July 25, 201. (B) The judgment of the lower court is that the Defendants acquired KRW 35,772,660 from the victim.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by taking account of the relevant evidence.

(C) Judgment of the court below

As seen earlier, in fraud, deception refers to the act of making a person mistake, but it cannot be said that there was a deception immediately by simply making a person mistake, and at least it should have been contrary to the good faith principle in the transactional relationship. Therefore, even if the other party's mistake is omitted, if it does not interfere with the achievement of the purpose of the transaction, it is difficult to deem that there was a deception for the establishment of fraud.

According to the evidence 1 of the court below duly adopted and examined at the court below, the fact that Defendant D, who did not have any record of supplying swimming clothes, was supplied by Defendant A with the swimming uniform manufactured in the Chinese factory, without attaching a tag proving that he used the LYCRA’s materials, can be acknowledged.

However, in light of the following circumstances that can be recognized based on the evidence, i.e., (i) a document evidencing that there is LYCRA’s material is submitted as evidence (Evidence List No. 210 of the Prosecutor’s Evidence, and No. 3293 of the investigation record), (ii) a defendantD received a test report from FITI (Korea Institute of Human Resources Testing and Research) to supplement and submit the test report from a government agency, and submitted it to the KITI (Korea Institute of Human Resources Testing and Research), and (iii) a product that satisfies the requirements of the supply requirement by inquiry reply at the trial. In the special electricity company at the wife, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendants supplied a hand uniform or supplied a hand uniform without attaching a document evidencing the use of LYCA’s material.

Therefore, even though this part of the facts charged against Defendant A and D constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A and D guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(7) As to Defendant A’s assertion on the fraud related to underwater cleaning robot supply by the Urban Management Corporation, AS guarantee certificate, and completion certificate of education

In accordance with the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below and the court below, the following circumstances are acknowledged: ① Defendant A, a company under its own MARINER’s agent, without any problems; ② Defendant C’s prosecutor’s office and each statement of the court below (as of the date of investigation record No. 4226, No. 430-431, No. 488, 516) to the effect that “B created and submitted a certificate of technical education by creating a Switzerland supplier certificate, AS guarantee certificate, professional education completion certificate in the name of P; ② Defendant B failed to meet the above conditions of the MARINER’s testimony and the prosecutor’s statement of the police at the time of avoidance of this case’s completion of education, and Defendant A could not be found guilty of any defect in the supply of B-A-B-B-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U.

(8) As to Defendant B’s assertion on the joint intrusion of a building (a special warehouse of the Incheon Coast Guard)

(A) Prior to the judgment on this part of the charges, Defendant B and D met with Defendant B and C, and C met with AH and AI on December 2, 2011, which led to the special warehouse of the Incheon Maritime Police Agency located in Jung-gu, Incheon, Jung-gu, Incheon. The fact was that Defendant B et al. belonged to AJ and received 37 morriic pulmonary pulmonary equipment from the 37 years old, but there was no place to examine the delivery of the counterterrorism equipment from the Incheon Maritime Police Agency's special Maritime Police Agency, which was the special warehouse of the Incheon Maritime Police Agency. This part of the charges stated that Defendant B and D moved to the warehouse of the 3rd Maritime Police Agency, which was the special warehouse of the 3rd Maritime Police Agency, which was the special warehouse of the 3rd Maritime Police Agency, and thus, Defendant B and D met with the 3rd Maritime Police Agency, which was the special warehouse of the 3rd Maritime Police Agency.

(B) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① Defendant B, D, and C use the special warehouse of the Incheon Maritime Police Agency for the purpose of supplying the above respiratory pulmonary equipment to the National Intelligence Service on the false statement that they supply the locker pulmonary equipment to the National Intelligence Service. ② However, Defendant B used the special warehouse of the Incheon Maritime Police Agency for the purpose of using the pulmonary equipment to receive 37 respiratory equipment; ② it is necessary to confirm goods to import and supply the pulmonary equipment, which is the scoo equipment, to the special military police agency of the Incheon Maritime Police Agency, which is the transfer of the military, and to check the quantity of the storage at the request of the head of the Incheon Maritime Police Agency, which manages the warehouse of this case, and it is necessary for the manager to obtain permission from the 2nd Ka to use the scoo equipment in the Incheon Maritime Police Agency for the purpose of using the scoo equipment in the warehouse.

B. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(1) Of the facts charged against Defendant A, as to the charge of forging and uttering 5 copies of the CTB bicycle bicycle test report and the charge of the charge against Defendant E, as to the charge of 5 parts of the CTB bicycle test report

(A) This part of the facts charged

At the "W" office of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan 8074, Defendant A was awarded a successful bid in the name of "W" for "W" for D and Defendant E, for which Defendant E conducted a market investigation, and D conducted a market investigation on the basic amount of KRW 56 million, and Defendant E conducted a market investigation on June 30, 201, and then D was awarded a successful bid of KRW 56 million in the name of "W" for "W" for "W 202, MTB 298, basic amount of KRW 74,700.

The above supply contract stipulated that all the goods to be supplied by the other party to a contract to purchase goods with the government pursuant to Article 13 of the General Conditions for the Purchase of Goods (Manufacture) contract should be supplied with solid and difficult goods in conformity with commercial customs, technical feasibility, purchase specifications, etc. In the case of CTB bicycles in the contract specifications, the contract specifications clearly state that the goods should be supplied with the 7-staled stale term and submit the safety inspection certificate when all bicycles are supplied.

Nevertheless, Defendant A and E made CTB bicycles using a six-speeded cTB bicycle that is not consistent with the mutual appearance at an infinite factory located in the Chinese club, produced and supplied them to D with low goods MTB bicycle that does not fit for the mutual appearance at a infinite factory located in the Chinese Ydong-gu, Gwangju, and received them with the knowledge of such fact, and as D requested the Korea Agency for Construction and Living Environment Examination to conduct a safety inspection for CTB bicycle, it was judged to have failed to pass the safety inspection on November 201, 201, Defendant A and E sent them to the contracting department by printing them by using the D protocol program and printing them by using the D protocol program, and then, Defendant E sent them to each of the above results by facsimile with the knowledge of such fact.

As a result, Defendant A and E forged 5 copies of the CTB bicycle test report in the name of the National Institute of Construction and Living Environment Examination in collusion with D for the purpose of uttering.

(B) The judgment of the court below

As to the above facts charged, the court below held that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor in light of the defendant D's investigation agency and the court below's statement to the effect that the defendant Eul forged the test report, and the defendant Eul did not know the forgery and use of the test report, and the defendant Eul also did not participate in the forgery of the test report is insufficient to recognize that the defendant Eul and Eul knew the forgery of the above test report in advance or conspired to exercise the forged document. Thus, the court below acquitted the above defendants on the grounds that each of the facts charged against the defendant Gap and Eul constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime.

(C) Judgment of the court below

The burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence with probative value, which leads to the judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the interest of the defendant should be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7261, Nov. 10, 201).

In light of the above legal principles, a thorough examination of the reasons for innocence in this part of the judgment below and the evidence of this case by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no new evidence to prove it in the trial, and there is no evidence to prove it in the trial, and there is no evidence to prove the above part of the facts charged solely on the circumstances asserted by the prosecutor in the grounds for appeal. Thus, the prosecutor's error in this part or the assertion of legal principles is without merit.

(2) Of the facts charged against Defendant B, as to the attempted fraud related to the diving supply of divings, and infringement of the trademark right of SCUBAPO

(A) This part of the facts charged

1) On May 18, 201, “A” and “D” were awarded a successful bid of KRW 158,540,000 (110,880,000) with respect to “A” and “A” and “A” were awarded a bid of KRW 158,50,000 (110,880,000,000,000 for the storage unit of the National Defense Information Headquarters of Korea Defense Information Center, product diving low pressure 84,000,000 water pressure 73,000,000 won, but they did not seek compensation for delay until November 27, 2011, which is the due date.

Accordingly, the defendant B could seek 84 phomatic devices to deliver to the military unit through "AV" so that 1.2 million won per unit can be changed.

However, Defendant B andV did not have the intent or ability to seek repulmonary pulmonary measures against SCUBAPROOO in line with the foregoing bidding specifications. After receiving KRW 75.6 million from D, Defendant B was discovered in the course of the examination on February 24, 2012 in order to allow D to deliver the A700 feet to D at will, as if it were A70BT, and to allow D not aware of it, to deliver the A700 feet to the military as if it were A70BT.

As a result, Defendant B conspired with AV and attempted to induce the victim’s military information headquarters to acquire KRW 100,880,00,000, as the victim’s military information headquarters was hidden, which satisfies the contractual terms and conditions.

2) Violation of the Trademark Act

Defendant B, along with AV on January 16, 2012, altered A700 to A70BT in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, which was operated by AW on January 16, 2012, thereby infringing on the trademark rights of SCUBAPRO (BAPRO) that was registered by creating 100 stuffs indicating SCUBAPRO’s Ma25/A700BT.

As to each of the above facts charged, the court below found the defendant B not guilty on the ground that the remaining evidences submitted by the prosecutor are insufficient to recognize each of the above facts charged, in light of the part concerning the AV statement among the police interrogation protocol of the defendant B, the police interrogation protocol of the AV, the police interrogation protocol of the defendant AV, the part concerning the AV statement and the recording of the 4th police interrogation protocol of the defendant B as evidence, and it cannot be admitted as evidence since the defendant B did not consent to the admissibility of evidence. In light of the confirmation document submitted by the prosecutor to the prosecutor, the witness AV, AJ, and AJ's testimony of each court below, the remaining evidences submitted by the prosecutor are insufficient to acknowledge each of the above facts charged.

(C) Judgment of the court below

According to the "Recording Record" 5 which the prosecutor has lawfully adopted and investigated in accordance with the application for the examination of evidence again in the trial at the trial at the trial, it is acknowledged that if the AV had altered the A700 goods of the SCUBAPRO's A700 goods in the conversation with D as if it were the defendant B, it was limited to the defendant, and it would correspond to the harm of the defendant B". During the examination of the witness in the court at the trial at the court of the trial at the court of the court below, there is a statement that "IV asked how the defendant would conduct the examination of the A70 goods," and there is a doubt that the defendant B would not be a conspiracy with the AV as to each of the above facts charged.

However, in a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense charged in the criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to believe that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to judge the defendant's interest as well (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do7261, Nov. 10, 201). The following circumstances acknowledged by the record are consistent with the record: ① Defendant B has consistently offered with AV concerning each of the above facts charged from the investigative agency to the trial, namely, it is difficult to deny the initial statement from the police station to change “A700T products” to a third party, and there is no room to acknowledge the fact that there is no evidence that the prosecutor, despite having offered the same effect as the above facts to the effect that there is no possibility of alteration of the products to the extent that it would have been attributable to the Defendant A and V products per 100.

Therefore, the court below's determination of not guilty of each of the above facts charged against Defendant B on the ground that there is no proof of a crime is just. Therefore, the prosecutor's allegation of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the convictions against Defendant A, B, and D of the lower judgment, there exists a ground for ex officio destruction as seen earlier, and there is reason for appeal by the said Defendants as to the fraud related to the delivery of the special type of hand-on clothes awarded on November 1, 201 and the joint infringement of the structure. As to the fraud related to the supply of video-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on on June 1, 201

Since one sentence should be imposed in the fraternity, the entire conviction part of the judgment of the court below against the above Defendants could not be maintained. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the judgment on the allegation of unfair sentencing by Defendant A, B, and D, the conviction part of the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is again decided as follows. The non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below (of the facts charged against Defendant A, forgery and use of five copies of the bicycle test report of the CTB bicycle test report of Defendant A, attempted fraud related to sericultural pulmonary resuscitation among the facts charged against Defendant B, and infringement of the SCBAPTRO trademark rights, and the prosecutor's appeal against Defendant E is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the court below which re-written the conviction of Defendant A, B, and D]

Criminal facts

Defendant A established a company of "P" in the name of 0 in a de facto marital relationship while residing in China, and manufactured and purchased diving equipment and military supplies equipment, etc. from abroad, including China, and supplied them to Korea. Defendant B established "R" in the name of Q, which is the head of Q, (business registration certificate, trade name in English), "T" in the name of Q, and "V" in the name of the head of the public procurement office and the military tender in the name of Q, and "V" in the name of the head of the public procurement office and the military tender. Defendant C was a person who was employed as the head of the stateU, and Defendant D was a person who participated in the military tender and supplied them. Defendant D was a partner of the military tender, and Defendant C was a person who participated in the military tender and supplied them.

According to Article 13 of the General Conditions for Goods Purchase Contract (Manufacture), all goods to be supplied by a contracting party who has entered into a goods purchase contract with the government shall be a new goods meeting the purpose of purchase. Although the goods must be supplied with solid and influent goods consistent with the commercial customs, technical feasibility, and purchase specifications, the Defendants were willing to receive money from the State by delivering used goods or defective goods.

1. Joint criminal conduct by Defendant A and B;

A. Attempted fraud and violation of the Trademark Act

On November 1, 2011, Defendant B and C were awarded a successful bid in the name of the StateU regarding “(State) unit of 7135 units in the demanded Agency, 3,288 penalties in the item number, 3,288 penalties, 3,288 water diameter, 104, 638,203 won tender notice.”

The above supply contract, for the last three years, has limited the qualifications for participation of companies with more than KRW 100 million, has paid new products that meet the purpose of purchase in accordance with Article 13 of the General Conditions for the Purchase of Goods (Manufacture) by the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, and according to the "Special Conditions for the Manufacture/Purchase of Goods", "Special Conditions for the Contract for the Manufacture/Purchase of Goods", the functional part of LYCA is attached, and the production company's test report should be submitted in the case of overseas products.

Nevertheless, Defendant B and C made a false certificate of supply performance under the name of R and StateU for the purpose of disguised bid as if they are qualified to participate in the bidding, participated in the bidding, and awarded a successful bid of KRW 80,000,000 in the name of the State. Defendant B and C attached a false “ARENA” trademark to the swimming clothes manufactured around February 2009 at a non-U factory, which could be mistaken as if LYC is made with the materials of LYC, and delivered it to Defendant B. Defendant B and C knowingly knowingly submitted the false certificate of supplier (mainly, 2012) to the effect that “W was supplied with the above swimming clothes, etc. to a domestic company as if they were supplied in W.” However, Defendant B and C did not supply them as if they were supplied to the KYA on July 18, 201 as if they were supplied with the test report.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in collusion to violate the trademark rights of ‘ARENA' registered by manufacturing the swimming uniform attached with the ‘ARENA' trademark, and attempted to deceive the victim's Army Special Command as it satisfies the contract terms and conditions, and acquired 32,187,920 won by deceiving the victim's Army Special Command, but attempted to commit the attempted crimes.

(b) Attempted fraud, fabrication of private documents, and uttering;

Defendant A was awarded a bid of KRW 22,029,830 on March 11, 201, to Defendant B and C in an unsound place, with the purport that “the public announcement of the announcement of blood sprinkers at the Maritime Headquarters is 90% or more of the basic amount,” and Defendant B and C was awarded a bid of KRW 22,029,830 in the name of the State for the case of “the case of the case of the 22,00,029,830 won or more of the basic amount through the national site on March 11, 201.”

The above supply contract stipulates that the new goods meeting the purpose of purchase should be paid in accordance with Article 13 of the General Conditions for the Purchase of Goods (Manufacture) established by the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, and the goods should be supplied within one year from the "special conditions" and the date of manufacture should be specified in the equipment.

Nevertheless, Defendant A purchased SSYMX from Z on February 2004 from Z(U.S.) in the French land in the U.S., and supplied Defendant B with no longer than one year after purchasing YYMX's blood response analysis equipment. Defendant B had C remove product information labelling labels in the name of SSYMEX in the (U.S.) U.S. on November 201, 201, at the (B) U.S. office located in the AB 2nd floor in the early police, Kim Jongpo-si, YYMEX, and the production year was 3.3. 201. 3. 'B-2408' and falsely marked the product ice to 'B-2408', and attached it to the second-hand goods in the process of tally delivering it to the inspector, but it was not possible to do so.

As a result, the Defendants forged product information labels in the name of the SYMEX company, which are private documents related to the certification of facts for the purpose of uttering in collusion, and exercised them, and attempted to defraud 22,029,830 won from the victim procurement office as if they were blood analysis meeting the contract terms and conditions.

Defendant A and C announced the announcement of the tender of KRW 590,000,000,000,000,000 for the detection of burial workers at the Army Headquarters, and the preparation for one year was made at the site of the Republic of Korea on March 28, 2011, and Defendant B received KRW 1266 units of the Army Headquarters, KRW 9,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000.

The above supply contract, according to Article 13 of the General Conditions for the Purchase of Goods (Manufacture) established by the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, must pay new goods that meet the purpose of purchase, supply solid and non-fluent goods that meet the commercial customs, technical feasibility, purchase specifications, etc., and the contract terms clearly state that the goods must pass the list of falling, waterproof, and shock test from the contract terms.

Nevertheless, Defendant A was unable to seek an electronic anti-paculation for the purpose of the burialr detection, using an electronic anti-pacific monitor and a similar scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubic scubics, and Defendant B and C attempted to supply the

As a result, the Defendants conspired to commit an attempted fraud of KRW 340 million from the Victim Procurement Service, by deceiving the Army Headquarters as if it were an electronic scambamer for the detection of buried persons who meet the contractual terms.

2. Defendant A, D’s joint criminal conduct (Fraud) and Defendant D’s fabrication and event of private document forgery at the “W” office in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AE building 8074, and Defendant D and E are to conduct a market investigation at the Maritime Headquarters, and Defendant D conducted a market investigation at the Maritime Headquarters, and Defendant D conducted a market investigation at the amount of KRW 56 million, and Defendant D was to receive a successful bid in the name of 56 million in the name of W on June 30, 201.

The above supply contract stipulated that all goods to be supplied by the contracting party to a contract who has entered into a contract with the Government pursuant to Article 13 of the General Conditions for the Purchase of Goods (Manufacture) shall be supplied with solid and difficult goods in compliance with the commercial customs, technical feasibility, purchase specifications, etc., and that at least seven parts of the contract shall be used in the case of almost seven parts of the contract, and all bicycles shall be supplied with the pass certificate of safety inspection.

Nevertheless, Defendant A and E made CTB bicycles using a six-dimensional transformation line that does not fit for salvous appearance at an infinite factory located in the Chinese club, produced and supplied them to Defendant D with low goods MTB bicycle that does not fit for salvous appearance at an infinite factory located in the Chinese city of Gwangju, and Defendant D knew of such fact, received it, and requested the Korea Construction and Living Environment Examination Institute to conduct a safety inspection for CTB bicycle, but failed to pass the safety inspection on November 201, 201, Defendant A and E sent it to the contracting department by printing it by using the above W W Office, by using the DB program, and then put it on the “not passing”, and then forged it on the “not passing of the test report,” and then submitted it to the contracting department, by facsimile, and delivered it to each of the above 4 bicycles with the knowledge of such fact, and supplied it to each of the aforementioned bicycle test report.

As a result, Defendant D forged five copies of the test report under the name of the Examination Institute in the Korea Construction and Living Environment City, which is a private document related to the certification of facts for the purpose of exercising the right, and Defendant D and E conspired with each other to exercise it, and the Defendants, as if the Defendants conspired to act as a bicycle meeting the contract terms, by deceiving the naval Gun Headquarters on December 27, 201, and by deceiving the victim Public Procurement Service of KRW 27,028,070 on May 9, 201, the sum of KRW 27,028,070 on the aggregate of KRW 18,303,070 on December 27, 201.

3. The fraud, fabrication, and uttering of private documents by Defendant A;

On March 10, 201, the Defendant, along with B, awarded a successful bid for KRW 31 million in the name of R in the case of a "demanding City Management Corporation" through a national site on March 10, 201: Provided, That the Defendant received a successful bid for KRW 35 million in the name of R.

In accordance with the terms and conditions of "contract", the above supply contract must submit one copy of the supplier's supply assurance, one copy of the technical assistance letter, one copy of the manufactured liability insurance copy, AS guarantee certificate, and two copies of the completion certificate of the specialized service completion certificate, and it was clearly stated that it is possible to provide AS for the product for two years, and it shall be a company that can receive more than one minute from the date of completion of repair at the time of occurrence of a breakdown or defect.

Nevertheless, the Defendant purchased a telegram at a Hong Kong MARININER3 S agency, not an agency of Korea MARINER 3S, which can issue the completion certificate, etc. of the specialized service, for the purpose of underwater cleaning at low prices, and thus, was not able to submit a AS guarantee and a certificate of specialized education.

Accordingly, the Defendant told C to the effect that “AS agency in the Republic of Korea is preparing a completion certificate and AS guarantee certificate”, and, on March 25, 2011, the Defendant had C, who is aware of the fact, prepare one AS guarantee certificate in the name of MAINER3S company and two completion certificates in the name of AS company in the name of BS company in the name of BS company in the name of BS company in the name of BS company in the name of BS company in the name of BS company in the name of BS company in the process of examination on March 25, 2011. Accordingly, the Defendant, for the purpose of exercising the rights and duties, submitted each forged AS guarantee certificate in the name of AS guarantee certificate in the name of MAINER3S company, and submitted each completion certificate to BS certificate in the name of BS company in the name of B, as if it was for cleaning as a contract satisfying the terms and conditions.

4. Defendant B, D, and C were to be a special warehouse of the Incheon Coast Guard located in the Jung-dong, Jung-dong, Jung-gu, Incheon, Incheon, the end of December, 2011. The fact was that Defendant B, etc. was the purpose of delivering 37 knife respiratorys by deceiving AJ, but Defendant B, etc. was not aware of the fact that Defendant B, etc. was supplied with counter-terrorism equipment to AK by the special military police agency of Incheon, Incheon, the special military police station AI, the head of the Incheon, Incheon, the Maritime Police Agency, through the special military police agency of Incheon, the head of the Dong-gu, Incheon, and the head of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong-gu, Incheon, and the head of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong-dong

Summary of Evidence

The summary of the evidence of the above criminal facts is as follows: 1. The investigation report on 1. '1. The evidence of the judgment of the court below [2.1.1. 'the evidence of the judgment of the court below (i.e., 2. 3. 'the case')' is added and 4. 1. 'the fact fact inquiry report of the Sung Urban Corporation' is added on 1. 'the evidence of the judgment of the court below (i.e., 4. 3. 'the case of this judgment')

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. One fact in the judgment (Defendant A, B);

Articles 352 and 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the attempted fraud), Article 93 of the Trademark Act (the point of infringement on trademark rights), Article 231 of the Criminal Act (the point of infringement on private documents), Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act (the point of exercising private documents), Article 30 of the Criminal Act

B. 2 Facts in the judgment (Defendant A, D)

Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the fraud of the accused), Article 231 of the Criminal Act (the use of the private document by the accused D), and Articles 234, 231, and 30 of the Criminal Act (the use of the private document by the accused D). 3 facts in the judgment (the defendant A)

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (Fraud) (the point of fraud), Article 231 of the Criminal Act (the point of use of private document) and Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act (the point of use of private document)

(d) 4 facts as indicated in the judgment (Defendant B, D) (Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Articles 319(1) and 34(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of intrusion on a joint structure);

1. Formal concurrence (Defendant A);

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (mutual between the crimes of uttering of a private investigation document with respect to one copy of a letter of guarantee of AS and two copies of a completion certificate of education)

1. Selection of a sentence;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (defendants);

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant B, D);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following grounds for sentencing each consideration of favorable circumstances to the above Defendants):

1. Confiscation (Defendant B, D);

For the reasons of sentencing of Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, each of the crimes of this case committed by the military units and public agencies is using a false trademark and labels on used goods, low-cost goods, maternity goods, etc. when they are supplied, by using a method of forging a document, and by deceiving or defrauding the national budget as if they were normal products without any defects. As such, it is very poor and hot that the method and the nature of the crime are very heavy. Defendant A directly manufactured or purchased and supplied a low-quality product in a foreign country, and supplied it to Korea, and he was in charge of the crime of this case. Defendant B and Defendant D attempted to gain profits by supplying low-quality munitions to the military units that he had kept their body for a long time, and Defendant B and D attempted to gain profits by supplying them. Defendant B and incumbent fire-fighting officials are not liable.

As there is a crime committed in the case, there is no criminal record of the same kind as this case except for criminal punishment of a fine of seven million won or more due to fraud in 2006, Defendant A did not have any criminal record of the same kind; Defendant B and D did not have any criminal record of the same kind; Defendant B had the actual result of receiving money during each of the crimes of this case; Defendant B had all attempted money; Defendant B had all attempted money; Defendant B’s delivery fraud was committed after a normal product was supplied with delivery or payment of penalty; it was not connected with actual damage; the motive and circumstance of each of the crimes of this case; the circumstances before and after each of the crimes of this case; the frequency and period of the crimes of this case; the role and degree of participation of the Defendants; the existence and degree of actual profit gained from each of the crimes; the age, character and conduct, occupation, job, family relation, etc.; and all of the circumstances that are favorable to the Defendants, such as the motive and circumstances leading up to the crime of this case; and the punishment shall be determined as per Disposition.

The acquittal portion

1. The facts charged against Defendant A and B are the same as described in the above 2.A. (3) and (a). This constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime for the same reason as described in the above 2.A. (3) and (c) and thus, a not-guilty verdict is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. On June 1, 201, the facts charged against Defendant A and D are the same as indicated in the above 2.A. (6) and (a). This constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime for the same reason as indicated in the above 2.-A. (6) and (c) and thus, the Defendant was acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Newly appointed judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Kim Jae-sung

Judges Park Jong-soo

1) Of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the police interrogation protocol against Defendant D or the police interrogation protocol against Defendant A

Part of the statement made by Defendant D corresponds to this part of the facts charged, and Defendant D’s defense counsel raises an objection at the original trial.

Although there was an opinion that Defendant D consented to the admissibility of the documents as evidence, from the original trial to the trial.

As long as this part of the facts charged is consistently denied, the content of the above documents that correspond to this part of the facts charged.

As such, it shall be deemed that the documents are not recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3997, Sept. 28, 2001).

It is not possible to use as evidence of guilt in part of the facts charged.

2) Fact that Defendant D did not submit data proving the supply performance, or that Defendant D used LYCRA’s materials on the swimming clothes.

Defendant D with respect to this point, since the tallyman does not attach a tally ordered tag is naturally known to the tallyman.

It is doubtful whether it can be seen as deceiving the inspector of the wife.

3) T.V.D, Corresponding products with luminous aluminium.

4) It is clear that the entry of “BO” in the indictment is an error.

5) On the date of the original trial, the court below recognized that D and AV are based on their statements, and artificially revised.

It is also recognized that the original recording file has been prepared as a record without recording, so the main text of Article 313(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is also recognized.

Accordingly, admissibility of evidence may be admitted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7497, Sept. 8, 2011).

6) As decided by the court below, the first and fourth police interrogation protocol of Defendant B, each of the AV statements in the police interrogation protocol, and AV

The police protocol, a copy of the police interrogation protocol of the AV is inadmissible and it is not admissible and guilty of each charge in this part.

shall not be admitted as evidence.