The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court determined that the testimony of the complainant E and the statement in the investigative agency are inadmissible as it did not satisfy the requirements of Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as the protocol where the testimony or statement in the investigation agency is written from the private teaching institute students and parents.

However, in the police, F, who was a student of a driving school, made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant reported the Defendant’s speech immediately next to the police,” which constitutes direct evidence, rather than the hearsay statement, and may be admitted as admissibility of evidence as a statement under particularly reliable circumstances in light of the developments leading up to the statement.

In this context, the facts charged of this case can be found guilty if the investigation report, etc. stating the statements of the private teaching institute students and parents, etc.

2. Determination

A. A. The prosecutor of the Amendments to Bill of Indictment filed an application for the amendment to Bill of Indictment with the purport that the part of the facts charged in the instant case against the private teaching institute students “in person or by telephone,” and this Court permitted the application.

However, Amendments to Bill of Indictment is merely a partial revision of the method of crime, and it cannot be accepted by the prosecutor's assertion on admissibility of evidence as examined later, and it cannot be viewed that the subject of the judgment by this court has changed substantially.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not reversed on the grounds of the above amendment of indictment, and the prosecutor's grounds for appeal are examined.

B. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below with regard to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the admissibility of the F’s statement at the police is not recognized, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone constitutes a statement that impairs the honor of D, as stated in the facts charged in this case.