In addition, the above statement shall be deemed to be sufficiently reliable because the contents of the statement are specific and detailed.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not accept an application for resumption of argument made by the prosecution for the examination of the witness of the police officer in the dispatch and the confirmation of the recording file of the E 112 report, and did not recognize the admissibility of evidence of the aforementioned written statement by reliance only on E’s legal statement that “the preparation of facts is not memory”.

Furthermore, although the control manual prepared by the police officer at the time of the instant case (hereinafter “ control manual”), stating that “the police officer was a shock show from the reporter E,” the lower court determined that the control manual was insufficient to prove the facts charged of the instant case on the ground that it was erroneous that the said control manual was merely an purport of receiving a report as to the facts charged as stated in E.

In this respect, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. As to the admissibility of evidence of the written statement of this case, a protocol in which the prosecutor or senior judicial police officer made a statement of a person other than the defendant according to lawful procedures and methods. The protocol is prepared in accordance with the same manner as the statement made before the prosecutor or senior judicial police officer is proved by a statement at a preparatory hearing or a trial date, video-recording, or any other objective method, and if the defendant or defense counsel could have examined the person making the original statement concerning the contents of the protocol at a preparatory hearing or a trial, it shall be admissible as evidence only when it is proved that the statement recorded in