(a) Whether the requirements stipulated in Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act are satisfied even in the case of a state in which it is impossible to be examined in court because the summons of the court is not complied with and the arrest warrant is not executed;

B. The meaning of "when made under particularly reliable circumstances" under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act

(c) The case recognizing the admissibility of evidence of the statement by the police on the ground that it was made under particularly reliable circumstances, in case where the witness of an act in the retail line made a concrete statement in the crime at the police station, in order to avoid retaliation against the offender, even though he made a false statement on his personal information in order to avoid retaliation against the offender

A. The requirement of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act is satisfied, where a person who needs to make a statement is unable to comply with summons of the court even if he/she has a death, illness, or a certain residence, and even if he/she has been compelled to appear in court due to the failure of the arrest warrant to be executed even if he/she is compelled to appear in court in the public trial.

B. "When they were made under particularly reliable circumstances" as stipulated in Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to cases where there is little room for false entry in the preparation of the content of the statement or the protocol or documents, and there is a specific and external circumstance to guarantee the credibility or arbitability of the contents of the statement.

C. The case holding that the admissibility of the protocol of statement by the police alone does not constitute a ground to deny the admissibility of evidence on the ground that it is difficult for a witness to witness to witness a crime of retailing in the city bus and to clarify the contents of the crime of retailing in the future of the bus box, giving him attention to the passengers on the bus, and immediately thereafter, the police officer made a clear statement of the contents of the crime of retailing in the manner of questioning with the offender, and even if the witness made a false statement on his personal information at the police station, his identity was revealed in the process of the investigation by the prosecution and the public trial, and that the witness's false statement was made with the intent to escape from tracking the offender.

Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Do2788 delivered on February 25, 1986 (Gong1986,581) 89Do351 delivered on June 27, 1989 (Gong1989,1196). Supreme Court Decision 87Do81 delivered on March 24, 1987 (Gong1987,764) 90Do246 delivered on April 10, 1990 (Gong190,1102) 94Do2880 delivered on February 28, 1995 (Gong195Sang,1518)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Kim Nam-jin et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 94No3097 delivered on February 3, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's defense counsel and private defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

Pursuant to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the protocol under Article 312 of the same Act or the documents stipulated in Article 313 of the same Act must be used as evidence, where a person who needs to make a statement is unable to make a statement in the official ruling due to death, illness, or any other cause, and the preparation of the statement or documents must be made under particularly reliable circumstances. The first requirement in this context must be met even in cases where the person who needs to make a statement is dead, ill, or has a certain residence but it is impossible to be examined in the court because he/she is unable to comply with summons of the court and the arrest warrant is not executed even if he/she is arrested (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Do2788, Feb. 25, 1986; 89Do351, Jun. 27, 1989; see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 208Do1984, Feb. 28, 1988).

According to the records, the first instance court and the lower court adopted the Nonindicted Party as a witness and summoned the Nonindicted Party on several occasions on the ground that it was difficult for the Nonindicted Party to take a retaliation against the Defendant, but the Nonindicted Party did not comply with the summons and issued a arrest warrant, but it was found that it was not possible to know the fact that the first requirement was met. In addition, according to the records, the Nonindicted Party, while boarding the city bus, issued the Defendant a witness to the instant crime during the bus, issued the bus’s attention to the passengers on the bus, and designated the Defendant as the offender after stopping the bus in front of the police box, and immediately after that, the Defendant clearly stated the details of the Defendant’s crime in detail through an examination at the police station. Accordingly, the second requirement is also satisfied. However, as pointed out, it is acknowledged that the Nonindicted Party stated his personal information differently from the fact in the police, but the Nonindicted Party stated the Defendant’s personal information in the prosecution process and the trial process, and thus, it is difficult for the Nonindicted Party to readily conclude the Defendant’s personal information as above.

Therefore, in the same purport, the court below's decision that recognized the admissibility of the police's written statement against the non-indicted is justifiable, and it is also justified in the measure that the court below admitted the above written statement as evidence and found guilty of the facts of the crime of this case, if it reviewed the relevant evidence in comparison with the records.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)