Whether a person who needs to make a statement is unable to be aware of his whereabouts as a result of the request for detection of his whereabouts, and whether a person who needs to make a statement refuses to comply with the summons of the court and the arrest warrant is not executed, constitutes "when a person is unable to make a statement by appearing in the court in the official ruling as prescribed in Article 314 of the

The court's request for the detection of the person who needs to make a statement several times because a writ of summons of witness has not been served on him/her, but no knowledge of his/her whereabouts has been known, or where a person who needs to make a statement has a certain residence but fails to comply with the summons of the court even if he/she had a certain residence, and in a situation where examination in the court is impossible because the arrest warrant is not executed, etc., it constitutes "when a person is unable to make a statement by attending the court in a public trial" under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, in cases where there is little room for false entry into the contents of the statement or the preparation of the protocol

Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Do246 delivered on April 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1102) Supreme Court Decision 95Do523 delivered on June 13, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2431) Supreme Court Decision 97Do1097, 97Do34 delivered on July 11, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2581)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 99No12221 delivered on April 11, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. 50 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The court's request for the detection of a witness's whereabouts was not delivered to a person who needs to make a statement several times, but the person's location was unknown, or the person who needs to make a statement could not know the person's whereabouts even if he had a certain residence, and in a situation where it is impossible to examine the person in court because the person fails to comply with the summons of the court and the arrest warrant was not executed even if the arrest warrant was issued, it constitutes "when the person is unable to make a statement by an appearance in court" under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, in a case where there is little room for false entry into the contents of the statement or the preparation of the protocol, and there is a specific and external circumstance to guarantee the credibility or decentralization of the contents of the statement, the admissibility of the statement shall be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do523, Jun. 13, 1995; 97Do1097, Jul.

According to the records, although the first instance court adopted a person who was arrested as a witness and summoned him/her, it is impossible to serve the summons. Thus, although he/she was commissioned to detect his/her location, it was not aware of his/her whereabouts, although the summons was summoned as a witness, it was served upon the court's request for detection of his/her whereabouts, but the summons was served upon him/her because he/she was absent on the date of trial, but the above stuff was not executed. Meanwhile, the court below adopted a person who was summoned as a witness and summoned him/her as a witness, but it was found that he/she was the detection of his/her whereabouts, but the person was not aware of his/her whereabouts. Under the above circumstances, each of the statements of Park Jong-sung's police statement and Park Jong-chul's written statement constitutes a case where the person requested the detection of his/her location because he/she was not served, and the person was unable to know his/her whereabouts or whereabouts even if he/she continued to comply with summons of the court, and thus, it constitutes evidence of each of the above statement or evidence.

Therefore, it is reasonable for the court below to consider it as evidence of guilt on the premise that the admissibility of the written statement or the written statement in an investigation agency as evidence of the above pathy, pathy, and pathy is recognized, and there is no illegality in violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, it is possible to fully recognize the defendant's criminal facts of this case, so there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence as alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jin-hee (Presiding Justice)