The witness D and E of the lower court, as a police officer investigating the Defendant, did not have the admissibility of evidence for the aforementioned witness’s testimony made by the Defendant at the time of the police investigation as long as the Defendant denies a crime contrary to the statement made before the police officers. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on hearsay evidence by adopting it as evidence.

2. Determination

A. Article 316(1) of the current Criminal Procedure Act, which was amended by Act No. 8496 of Jun. 1, 2007 and enforced on Jan. 1, 2008, provides that where a statement made by a person other than the defendant (including a person who has investigated or participated in the investigation of the defendant as a suspect before the institution of public prosecution) at a preparatory hearing or during a public trial is the contents of the defendant's statement, it may be admitted as evidence only when it is proved that the statement was made in a particularly reliable state. In the event a person who was investigating the defendant appeared and testified in the court during the investigation process, it may be admitted as evidence if it is proved that the statement made by the defendant was made in a particularly reliable state. "When it was made in a particularly reliable state," there is little doubt that the statement was made in a false state, and it refers to the case where there is specific and external circumstances that guarantee the credibility or voluntariness of the contents of the statement.

(2) According to the above witness’s testimony, the above witness, who was a police officer who investigated the Defendants, was so drunk that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and demanded the Defendant to take a alcohol alcohol test immediately after receiving a report that the Defendant was driving, and the Defendant was to have the vehicle deducted, and only lost the vehicle.