The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that according to the statements of the victim H and I, the facts charged in the instant case are sufficiently proven, but the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. There are statements between I and the victim H as evidence that seems to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case.

First, the admissibility of evidence is acknowledged only when it is proved by the original person who made the original statement or the person who made the statement or the person who made the statement is unable to make a statement on the grounds of death, disease, foreign residence, unknown whereabouts, or any other similar cause, when it is proved that the statement or the preparation was made in a particularly reliable state, since each of the above documents is a protocol under Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 313(1) of the same Act.

However, the requirements under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provide for the exceptions to direct care and hearsay rule, must be strictly examined, and the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the requirements for the admissibility of hearsay evidence. Thus, if the court intends to recognize that a witness falls under the case where a witness is unable to make a statement because of “the location of the witness is unknown or any other similar cause”, the prosecutor must prove that the witness was unable to appear in the court even though he/she made possible and sufficient efforts for the witness’s appearance,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1435, Apr. 11, 2013). According to the record, the lower court adopted I who did not consent to I’s each of the police statements and written statements as evidence, as a witness, and sent I’s summons to I’s domicile.