2. Determination

A. In principle, a protocol containing a full-time statement or a full-time statement is inadmissible in accordance with the provisions of Article 310-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the full-time statement is admissible in accordance with the provisions of Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 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. The protocol containing a full-time statement is admissible in cases where each of its admissibility can be recognized in accordance with the provisions of Article 312 or 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as well as in cases where each of its admissibility can be recognized

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2891, Jul. 27, 2001).

After considering the premise that E, K’s investigation agency and the court below’s admission into and withdrawal from the court below are based on evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, all of the statements made by E, E, and K are based on the contents before I, and it is difficult to view that they meet the requirements for admissibility of evidence under Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the statement statement or written statement (written petition) stating the above statement also did not consent to use as hearsay evidence, all of them are inadmissible.

The following facts charged cannot be deemed to have been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the facts charged, solely with the remaining admission and withdrawal of money, by means of personnel expenses for G, and the evidence submitted by a prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the guilty of the facts charged.