Where the person who made a statement is unable to be summoned because his/her address is unknown, evidence of the written statement prepared by the police

If a writ of summons for the summons of a witness is not served with an unknown address, and the whereabouts are unknown even by the request for the detection of the whereabouts, the protocol of protocol prepared by the judicial police assistant for the witness shall be admissible.

Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Do171 delivered on March 23, 1971, 83Do768 delivered on May 24, 1983

Defendant

Defendant

Msan District Court Decision 83No104 delivered on February 21, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the records, we affirm the criminal facts recognized by the court of first instance, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing, such as the theory of litigation, in the process of fact-finding. Thus, the decision of the court below that dismissed the defendant's appeal is justifiable.

Upon review of records, the first instance court decided to summon the witness's rights and interests and Kim State affairs, but the summons of the second instance is not served because the address is unknown, and even if the location is unknown even if the request for detection of the location is made (see, e.g., 55 pages and 74 of the trial record). Therefore, the police's written statement about these documents is admissible in accordance with Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da31440, Apr. 2, 2009).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)