The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no fact that a mistake of fact-finding defendant committed violence against the victim and caused the left-hand frame as stated in the decision of the court below.

The statement part of H recognized as evidence of guilt in this part is inadmissible.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The requirements under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provide for the exceptions to the principle of direct judgment and the hearsay rule on admissibility of evidence, 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 the case constitutes “when a person is unable to make a statement because of any other reason” under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the prosecutor must prove the circumstance that the witness was unable to appear in the court even though he/she made possible and sufficient efforts to appear in the court.

As to this case, we examine this case.

According to the records, the court of the court below summoned H as a witness, but it was impossible to summon H as a witness, and it was impossible to summon H with the cell phone of H, but due to the arrival suspension, and the request for detection of the location of H was made, but H was continuously requested to detect the location of H, but H was merely a statement that H was residing in the local area, and its statement was refused as to the place where H was specifically residing, and that H did not have an intent to attend the court thereafter.

In full view of these circumstances, since the attendance of a witness was impossible even after considerable efforts were made to attend the court, Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act constitutes "when a person is unable to make a statement due to any other similar cause" and the contents of H's statement at the prosecution are very specific, detailed and consistent.