The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which ruled that each police officer and the suspect interrogation protocol against the summary B of the grounds for appeal meet the requirements of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and although the evidence submitted by the prosecutor including the above evidence can be sufficiently admitted, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion

2. In a case where the Criminal Procedure Act acknowledges the admissibility of evidence of a statement or written statement made by a witness when the person making the original statement or the person making the statement (hereinafter “person making the statement”) is missing, etc., the Criminal Procedure Act recognizes exceptions to the basic principles, such as the principle of direct cross-examination by allowing the admissibility of evidence only when strict requirements are met, such as guaranteeing the right of cross-examination of the defendant or his defense counsel regarding the written statement, etc. under Article 312 or 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act, thereby allowing the admissibility of evidence without any opportunity to cross-examine the person making the original statement, etc. In such a case, the “certification of whether the statement or written statement by the witness was made in a particularly reliable state” is insufficient to the extent that it is difficult, and there is room for reasonable deliberation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do12652 Decided February 21, 2014). In full view of the fact that: (a) the Defendant appears to have stated the Defendant as his female-friendly tool; (b) the Defendant and B appears to have not been in the space on the Internet game; and (c) the Defendant and B appears to have failed to provide a consistent explanation at an investigative agency regarding their occupation, mobile phone termination background; and (d) the circumstance in which the Defendant did not return KRW 90,000 received from the Defendant, etc., there is room for reasonable deliberation as to whether evidence was made in a particularly reliable state.