The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the act of assault, Article 318(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “documents or articles on which the prosecutor and the defendant agree to be admitted as evidence shall be admitted as evidence when deemed to be genuine” and does not limit the method of recognizing as genuine. Thus, documents or articles with consent may be admitted as evidence if the court recognizes as genuine in consideration of all the circumstances, and cannot be admitted as genuine only by the statement of the person making the original statement.

(2) Article 318(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a police interrogation protocol, which is evidence of assault, among the facts charged in the instant case, may be admitted as evidence on July 10, 2008 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5066, Jul. 10, 2008). In light of such legal principles, the admissibility of evidence is recognized pursuant to Article 318(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that this protocol is inadmissible as it fails to meet the requirements of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. As to the grounds of appeal as to the injury, in order to use the protocol under Article 312 or the statement under Article 313 as evidence pursuant to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a person who needs to make a statement at a preparatory hearing or a trial date must be at the time when he/she is unable to make a statement due to death, disease, unknown whereabouts of foreign residence, or any other similar cause, and the statement or preparation should be made in a particularly reliable state.

The requirements of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which set the exception of direct care and hearsay rule, should be strictly examined, and the admissibility of hearsay evidence is admissible.