On July 19, 2014, at the government-based 05:00, the Defendant received radioactive drugs from E, a d apartment’s house, a dactylphone (one philophone, hereinafter referred to as “philophone”) with non-dilution volume.

B. On the 29th 22:00 of the same month, the Defendant received a single-use injection 0.1g of phiphones from E, who had a single-use injection at the same place as the above 1st 2:00 of the same month.

2. Although there are statements from E investigative agency that there is no direct evidence to acknowledge the facts charged of the instant case and that there is a statement from E investigative agency that the Defendant received a phiphone from the Defendant as evidence submitted by the prosecutor, each of the above E investigative agencies did not consent to the Defendant as evidence, and the authenticity of the establishment is not recognized by the statement of the person making the original statement, and thus, the admissibility of evidence

On the other hand, the prosecutor asserts that E’s statement in an investigative agency is admissible as evidence under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but, upon the request of the prosecutor, the number of times in which E received a summons of witness, and the police officers, etc. who investigated E’s whereabouts in accordance with this court, were notified of the continuation of trial and the date of examination of witness several times, but it appears that E intentionally avoided the attendance of witness. In addition, it is difficult to view that E does not constitute a case where E is unable to make a statement due to unknown whereabouts, and if E intentionally evades the attendance of witness, it is difficult to view that E’s statement or preparation in an investigative agency was made in a particularly reliable state.