In order to use the protocol under Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act or the statement, documents, etc. under Article 313 of the same Act as evidence pursuant to Article 314 of the same Act, two requirements must be met that a person who requires a statement at a preparatory hearing or a court date shall be when he/she is unable to make a statement due to death, disease, foreign residence, unknown whereabouts, or any other similar cause, and that the statement or preparation was made in a particularly reliable state.

The requirements of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provide for the exception of directism and the hearsay rule, must be strictly examined. Since the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the requirements for the admissibility of hearsay evidence, if the court intends to recognize that the witness is unknown or is unable to make a statement due to any other similar cause, the prosecutor must prove the fact that the witness was unable to appear in court even though he/she fully made possible and sufficient efforts for the witness's appearance.

(2) According to the records, the court of first instance maintained by the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1435, Apr. 11, 2013). The court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1435, Apr. 11, 2013) adopted E as a witness, and adopted E as a witness, but the witness summons was not served. As such, the court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do1435, Apr. 11, 201) adopted and examined the above accusation and the protocol as evidence based on Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the date

However, E is the fourth instance court, which is the time when a writ of summons of the first instance court to it has not been served.