The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) E’s statement in the lower court is difficult to be reliable, and the testimony of E’s investigative agency is credibility in accordance with objective evidence, such as field pictures and 112 reports.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the facts charged of this case.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to acknowledge the instant facts charged on the grounds that ① the prosecutor’s office and the police’s protocol on the victim D’s testimony is not admissible as it is not acknowledged by the original person, ② the investigation report recording the contents of the telephone statement hearing with F is inadmissible pursuant to Article 310-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, ③ the contents of the statement submitted by E to the investigative agency are difficult to be deemed as reliable despite the legal statement.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is correct and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

① Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act recognizes the admissibility of evidence of a statement or a statement made by a witness when his/her whereabouts is unknown. As such, the Criminal Procedure Act allows the admissibility of evidence of a written evidence, including the statement made by a witness under Article 312 or 313 only when it satisfies strict requirements, such as guaranteeing the cross-examination right of the accused or his/her defense counsel with respect to such written evidence as the statement made by the witness, so that the admissibility of evidence can be granted without any opportunity for cross-examination against the original person, etc. by recognizing the exceptions to the basic principles, such as the direct psychological principle, again. In such a case, “proof as to whether the statement or preparation made under particularly reliable circumstances” is merely a “certification as to whether it was made under particularly reliable circumstances.”