① The lower court determined that: (a) the part of the statement of the lower court and the statement of the suspect interrogation protocol and the statement of the E, stating that “C moved to the office of the sports soil site operation and manage the Defendant; (b) the Defendant continued to return the sports soil site in the Philippines; and (c) the Defendant’s statement stating the full text or the full text of the statement (hereinafter referred to as “E’s full text statement”) is a protocol stating the statement or the full text of the statement (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant’s full text statement”) in which “A person who made the original statement cannot make a statement on the grounds of death, disease, overseas residence, unknown whereabouts, etc.; and (c) the statement was made in a particularly reliable state pursuant to Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act; and (d) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the statement was admissible, and thus, the E’s full text statement is inadmissible.

However, according to the current status of entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea, C did not enter the Republic of Korea on April 12, 2014 after departure from the Republic of Korea to the Republic of Korea, and it can be recognized that the current status of designation has been several times due to unknown whereabouts. As such, E’s professional statement is admissible as evidence pursuant to Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “A’s assertion”). (2) If so, E’s professional statement is admissible, C’s transaction details between the accounts used by C and the Defendant’s account; (3) C dialogues between E and Kakakakaox on August 3, 2014 to the effect that “I want to operate the gambling site without any other employees in the future”; (4) this conforms to the Defendant’s details of entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea; and (5) the address of the travel company where the Defendant had worked in the Republic of Korea.