The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: G on September 9, 2011, the Defendant, through the Defendant’s ASEAN.

9. On 10:00 on 19. 10:00, the National Assembly did not appear as a witness even after receiving a written request for a witness attendance under the name of the chairman of the National Assembly Education Science and Technology Council.

As to this, the lower court maintained the first instance court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the above facts charged by taking into account the following as evidence: (a) the statement made by I in the third trial record and the investigation report of this case (written confirmation of the contents of the accusation).

According to the records, among the investigation report of this case submitted to the court of first instance, the contents of the CD were not consented to as evidence by the defendant and his defense counsel, and it was adopted as evidence on the third trial date of the court of first instance. This seems to be due to the testimony that I directly taken cdys during the third trial date, and that the nurse testified as recorded cydys.

However, even if I testified the above contents, the contents of the nurse's statement, which is the original person making the original statement, are still hearsay evidence as long as the nurse did not directly appear at the preparatory hearing or the trial date, and thus, the investigation report stating the contents of the nurse's statement among the I's statement and the weatherd contents during the third trial date, is inadmissible.

However, the court below erred by misapprehending the evidence that cannot be used as evidence due to its lack of admissibility as evidence as evidence, and the defense counsel's ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

However, even if only the remainder of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, excluding the parts of the nurse’s statement among the above evidences, it is sufficient to find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, so the above error of the lower court does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.