2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case for the following reasons.

In principle, a protocol in which a false investigative agency written the statement of the person making the original statement has a limit that it has no choice but to have probative value to a degree extremely low compared to the statement of the person making the original statement. In particular, in a case where the appearance of the person making the original statement or cross-examination has not been conducted, the protocol in which the statement was written cannot be acknowledged as having the real value of evidence sufficient to serve as the basis for judge’s right judgment. Therefore, even though the defendant denied the facts charged and the content of the protocol in which the statement was written by the person making the original statement, if the defendant was unable to attend the court and cross-examination by the defendant, even though the facts that the statement was directly experienced by the person making the original statement were accurately and in detail, the exact purport of the statement can be clearly recognized even if the contents of the protocol are accurately and clearly stated without cross-examination, and there is no doubt in accordance with the empirical rule, and thus, there is no other evidence that can support the credibility and probative value of the statement recorded in the protocol, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged as evidence (see this case).