2. The Defendant consistently denies the instant facts charged from the police to the instant court (i.e., the Defendant, despite the fact that the Defendant was drinking, but this is the fact that the ctv materials were transferred to the cargo vehicle, and the fact that the ctv materials were transferred to the cargo vehicle, and that there was a change in the fact that the clock had not been driven by drinking). The evidence as shown in the instant facts charged lies in the witness F’s legal statement and the record of the results of the alcohol alcohol measurement, and the images of the ctv materials to capture.

First of all, among the statements of the witness F in this Court, it is not clear that the defendant driven the scambling machine when the witness arrives at the site of this case, but the statement from the reporter (the witness E) stating that "the defendant scamblings as he driven by drinking alcohol" constitutes a so-called "professional statement" with the contents of "the statement of another person who is not the defendant."

The hearsay statement is not admissible in principle in accordance with Article 310-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act: Provided, That when the statement made by a person other than the defendant on the date of trial contains "a statement made by another person other than the defendant", it shall be admissible in exceptional cases only when the person making the original statement is unable to make a statement due to death, illness, residence in a foreign country, or any other reason, and the statement is made under particularly reliable circumstances pursuant to Article

However, the requirement of Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act that "if the original person is unable to make a statement due to death, illness, residence in a foreign country, or any other reason, it shall not be made unless the witness E, who is the original person making the statement, appears and