The case holding that the so-called "a person who needs a statement in court cannot make a statement because of death, illness, or any other cause" of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall not be deemed to fall under the so-called "

With respect to a person for whom a writ of summons is impossible to be served, if the public prosecutor withdraws the request for summons of both parties without the request for compulsory appearance against the person who fails to be summoned twice or more without the investigation of his whereabouts, and the public prosecutor withdraws the request for summons of both parties, and if it is impossible to examine the person in the courtroom to prove the authenticity of the formation of each protocol of statement, the exception to the admissibility of evidence under this Article shall not be admitted.

Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1

Defendant 2

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 68No660 delivered on February 15, 1969

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

From among detention days after the appeal, 60 days shall be included in the principal sentence.

(1) We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Kim Sung-hwan

The summary of this case is that the defendant provided the gambling place in this case and lent gambling money to Kim-ju who is co-defendant at the court below. However, since the defendant asserts that he did not have committed a fraudulent gambling, the defendant denies the criminal facts of this case and makes the defendant's situation that the court below's form of punishment is excessive. If the evidence of the court of first instance maintained by the court below is examined in accordance with the records, it cannot be said that the court below erred in the judgment of the court of first instance which recognized the criminal facts of this case, and even if considering the circumstances such as theory of lawsuit, it cannot be said that there is no error in the law of law in the judgment of the court of first instance which recognized the court of first instance, and even if the defendant was sentenced to a punishment of two-year imprisonment, it cannot

(2) We examine the grounds of appeal by the Prosecutor of the Gwangju District Prosecutor's Office;

According to the records, Defendant 2 rejected the suspect examination protocol prepared by the judicial police officer in charge of handling affairs against Nonindicted 1 of the theory of lawsuit against the defendant, and the suspect examination protocol prepared by the judicial police officer in charge of handling affairs against Nonindicted 2, who is not the defendant, and the suspect examination protocol prepared by the judicial police officer in charge of handling affairs against the defendant, and it is evident that the prosecutor does not consent to the admissibility of evidence. The prosecutor adopted and summoned the above two persons to the court in order to prove the authenticity of the statement statement in the investigation agency by the court, but the summons was not served on Nonindicted 1, but the prosecutor withdrawn the request for summons of the person without the investigation. The prosecutor withdrawn the request for summons of the person without the appearance of the person, and the prosecutor withdraws the request for summons of the person in question without the appearance of the person in question without the appearance of the person in question, and in the above case, it is evident that Nonindicted 1 and 2 were unable to examine the person in question, who is the original witness in the above investigation agency, and thus, it cannot be found that the person's statement in the grounds of appeal cannot be established in so-called evidence.

Therefore, the grounds of appeal on the defendant Kim Sung-hwan and the appeal by the prosecutor on the defendant Lee Jae-hwan are groundless, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-subop (Presiding Judge)