Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act by finding a not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds that the above statement of statement was inadmissible as evidence and that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the

2. Determination

A. Articles 312(4) and 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act adopted the principle of substantial direct cross-examination and hearsay rule that the formation of a conviction against the substance of a case should be conducted through the examination of evidence guaranteed by the cross-examination in the presence of a judge in order to realize the principle of due process required by the Constitution in a criminal procedure, but in special circumstances where the above principle cannot be achieved due to the death of the person who made the original statement, etc., “when it is proved that the statement or preparation was made in a particularly reliable state” (i.e., when it is proved that the statement or preparation was made in a particularly reliable state), i.e., the purport of exceptionally allowing admissibility of evidence only when there is little room for false intervention in the preparation of the content or protocol

Therefore, in order to recognize admissibility of evidence in accordance with Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is insufficient for the court to simply have no obvious procedural error in the preparation process of the statement or protocol, or there is no specific circumstance to suspect the voluntariness of the statement. Furthermore, there is a specific and external circumstance that sufficiently guarantees the credibility and voluntariness of the statement in the court without going through cross-examination, and thus, the court has conviction based on such specific and external circumstance.