The defendant shall be innocent.

1. At around 20:40 on July 16, 2012, the Defendant, without registering with the competent authority, opened a news report room in the trade name called “F” by way of opening a singing-free shop in the name of “F”, by arranging the singing-free shop D (at least 35 years of age), E (at least 31 years of age) at a singing room located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government upon the request of the owner of the relevant business, and then arranging the Plaintiff to run a fee-charging job placement service by arranging the Defendant to run a singing-free shop for one hour per person and receiving KRW 5,00 per person as an intermediary fee.

2. We examine the judgment, D, and E denies the above facts of the defendant's business in this court, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as witness D and E's each legal statement, is insufficient to recognize the above facts of the charge, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

A prosecutor submits an interrogation protocol of suspect suspect who investigated E's suspicion of perjury as reference material, but it is not possible to grant admissibility to the interrogation protocol of suspect.

- The submission of a written statement prepared by a prosecutor who had already testified at a preparatory hearing or during a public trial to reverse it unilaterally after summonsing a witness favorable to the defendant is contrary to the litigation structure under the current Criminal Procedure Act aiming at the principle of party, the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of directness. In addition, it violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 27 of the Constitution, i.e., the right to a trial where all evidential materials are investigated and stated in the presence of a judge and the defendant is given an opportunity to attack and defend against them. Thus, such written statement is not admissible unless the defendant gives consent that it can be admitted as evidence. After that, the previous witness who is the original person making the original statement, recognized the authenticity of the establishment of the written statement while attending the court again and