[2] The admissibility of evidence of a protocol containing a professional statement or a professional statement that the defendant did not agree to as evidence

[2] In principle, a protocol in which a full-time statement or a full-time statement is made shall not be admissible in accordance with Article 310-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, in accordance with Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the full-time statement shall be exceptionally admissible only when it is impossible for the person making the original statement to make a statement due to death, illness, residence in a foreign country, or any other reason, and its statement is made under particularly reliable circumstances. A protocol in which a full-time statement is made shall be admissible in cases where its admissibility can be recognized in accordance with Article 312 or 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act,

In this case, with respect to each of the crimes against the victim 1 of the defendant (the crimes listed in the annexed list of crimes No. 3 and No. 12 in the judgment of the court of first instance), the complaint was filed in the name of the non-indicted 1, who is not the right to file the complaint. However, the complaint was filed by his mother, who is the legitimate right to file the complaint, and is effective by his agent. As to the crime No. 12, the complaint was filed by his agent. As to the crime No. 12, the one-year period of complaint under Article 19 (1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims Thereof has not yet elapsed from the date of the crime until the date of the complaint, and as to the crime No. 3, since the non-indicted 2 became aware of the defendant's crime

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the establishment of a substitute complaint or the calculation of the period for filing a complaint. Therefore, this part of the grounds for appeal

2. In addition, with respect to each of the facts charged as to the remaining charges except for the crimes against the victim 1 as mentioned above, the court below's decision is just in holding that since the victim's parents become aware of the facts charged at the immediately preceding stage of the crime in the case of crimes Nos. 7, 9, and 11 in the crime list of the same crimes, the period of one year has not elapsed until the time of the complaint, even if counting from the date of the crime. In the case of crimes No. 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 in the case of crimes, the victim's parents become aware of the facts charged at the time of the crime, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation,

3. In addition, the court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of the crime Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 9, 11, and 12 of the same crime list among the facts charged in this case, and there is no error in the incomplete hearing or violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, this part of the grounds of appeal

4. Meanwhile, the court below found the Defendant guilty of committing the crime No. 3 as indicated in the list of crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "section No. 3 charges") and the crime No. 10 (hereinafter referred to as the "crime charge") committed on or around April 200, which committed an indecent act against the victim 1 in April 199, among the facts charged in the instant case.

However, in this case, the defendant acknowledged all the above facts of crime at the police investigation stage, and denies it consistently from the investigation stage of the prosecution and the first instance court and the lower court. The suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant prepared by the police is inadmissible and admissible. The evidence admitted by the lower court is recorded as evidence of guilt. ③ As to the partial facts of crime, the witness Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 1 of the first instance court's witness and the witness protocol of Nonindicted 1 prepared by the police are recorded, and there are only the statements of the first instance court witness of the first instance court and the witness protocol of the first instance court of the second instance prepared by the police. Regarding the facts of the charges, the witness's testimony of the first instance court of the first instance and the witness statement of the second instance prepared by the police are recorded only in the witness's statement of the second instance witness of the first instance court and the third party's statement made by the victim of the first instance court of April 199 or around August 200, the police's statement made by the victim of the second instance and the second instance evidence of the first instance.

However, in principle, a protocol containing such a hearsay statement or a hearsay statement is inadmissible in accordance with the provisions of Article 310-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the hearsay statement is exceptionally admissible only when the person making the original statement is unable to make a statement due to death, illness, residence in a foreign country, or any other reason and its statement is made under particularly reliable circumstances pursuant to the provisions of Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The protocol containing a hearsay statement falls under cases where its admissibility can be acknowledged in accordance with the provisions of Article 312 or 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and is exceptionally admissible in accordance with the provisions of Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do159, Mar. 10, 200). In this case, the victim 1 appears in the court of first instance as a witness and testified, and the victim 2 also appears in the police court of first instance and the witness statement prepared by the court of first instance cannot be admitted to the victim’s testimony or hearsay evidence.

Therefore, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of the portion of the facts charged (3) based on the above data misunderstanding the legal principles as to the admissibility of hearsay evidence and violating the rules of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds of appeal pointing this out are with merit.

5. Therefore, the judgment of the court below on the facts charged in the portion (3) cannot be maintained any more, and since the remaining convictions in the judgment of the court below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)