The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence presented by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant can recognize the fact that the victim’s her her her butt will have committed an indecent act intentionally.

2. Determination

A. A protocol in which an investigative agency written the statement of the person making the original statement is bound to have probative value in essence, compared to the statement of the person making the original statement as evidence. In particular, in a case where the person making the original statement is present at court and cross-examination is not conducted, a protocol in which the statement is made cannot be recognized as having the real value of evidence that can serve as the basis for the formation of a correct trial by judges

Therefore, even though the defendant denied the facts charged and the statement made by the person making the original statement in support thereof, if the defendant was unable to attend the court and cross-examine the defendant, it is clear and detailed that the facts of his direct experience in the statement recorded in the protocol were accurately and in detail, and the detailed contents of the circumstances are stated, and even without undergoing cross-examination, the exact purport of the statement can be clearly recognized even if the contents of the statement are not in conformity with the empirical rule, and thus, there are no special circumstances to recognize strong probative value in light of the form and contents of the protocol, or there are other flexible evidence to support the credibility and probative value of the statement recorded in the protocol, so it is not recognized as having genuine value of evidence, and thus, it is not permissible to recognize the facts charged as its main evidence in principle.

This is true in cases where the person making the original statement was unable to attend the court and cross-examine due to the death or illness of the person making the original statement, and where the defendant consented to the protocol of the investigation agency

Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9730 Decided December 8, 2006