1. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides an exception to the principle of directness and 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 unable to make a statement due to an unknown whereabouts or other similar reasons, the prosecutor must prove that the witness was unable to appear in court even though he/she made possible and sufficient efforts for the witness's appearance in court even though he/she made efforts.

(1) The lower court determined that among the first instance judgment admitted as evidence, the part against Defendant A and C constituted an ex officio reversal of evidence against the rules of evidence in light of the following circumstances: (a) each police protocol of the victim V, W, and L, which the Defendant A did not consent to use as evidence; and (b) the police protocol of the victim A and W, which the Defendant C did not consent to use as evidence; and (c) each police protocol of the said victims did not constitute a case where the said victims cannot make a statement at court due to the death, disease, foreign residence unknown; and (d) other reasons corresponding thereto, the admissibility of evidence is not recognized pursuant to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act; and accordingly, among the first instance judgment that adopted as evidence, the part against Defendant A and C did not constitute an ex officio reversal of evidence.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on admissibility of evidence under Article 31

B. Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a prosecutor or senior judicial police officer shall.