All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below rejected the above evidence and acquitted the defendant on the ground that there was a lack of evidence to acknowledge the facts charged, or there was an error of law by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although the victim's accusation, the police officer and the prosecutor's statement against the victim were made under particularly reliable circumstances.

B. The defendant asserts that, with respect to the punishment sentenced by the court below (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution), the defendant is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act recognizes the admissibility of evidence of a statement or written statement made or prepared by a witness in cases where the whereabouts of the witness is unknown. As such, Article 312 or 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act recognizes exceptions to the basic principles, such as the direct psychological principle, by allowing the admissibility of evidence only in cases where strict requirements are met, such as guaranteeing the cross-examination right of the defendant or his/her defense counsel with respect to the written statement, etc. of a witness, thereby allowing the admissibility of evidence without any opportunity to cross-examine the person making the original statement. In such a case, “proof of the fact that the statement or written statement by the witness was made in a particularly reliable state” is insufficient to the extent that it is probable, and there is room for reasonable deliberation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do12652 Decided February 21, 2014). The lower court, under Article 2(2) of the judgment, did not contact with the prosecution after the prosecution was instituted by the victim, and the cross-examination between the victim and the Defendant is conducted during the investigation process.