The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles) corresponds to a case in which it is impossible to make a statement because the whereabouts are unknown, and documents, such as the protocol containing each of the statements, E, have been made under particularly reliable circumstances, and thus, evidence is admissible in accordance with Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant despite credibility in light of the existence of credibility of the statement, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In order for the court to admit admissibility of evidence pursuant to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the fact that there is no obvious procedural error in the process of preparing the relevant statement or protocol, or there is no specific circumstance to suspect the voluntariness of the statement, which goes beyond this, does not violate the principle of trial on evidence even if the court establishes a conviction based on the specific and external circumstances that sufficiently ensure the credibility and voluntariness of the statement, even if it does not go through the cross-examination, etc. in the court.

The first instance judgment on the first instance judgment on August 26, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do6035, Aug. 26, 2014). The first instance court did not have any reasonable doubt as to whether the evidence submitted by the prosecutor’s office, such as the witness’s statement, the witness’s statement to E, the suspect interrogation statement to the Defendant, the E portion of the statement, the written complaint to E, and each written statement to the Defendant, were not consented to the Defendant’s evidence, and the authenticity of establishment was not recognized by the original statement by the person’s statement, and there is no evidence that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor’s office, such as the witness’s statement, the police witness statement to G, the statement to G, the statement to the police witness, and the witness training report to the subordinate 2013, constitutes a worker who provided labor for the purpose of E’s wage.