The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) in the first instance trial is admissible in accordance with Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, taking into account that G’s failure to appear in the court of first instance in the examination protocol of G, the president of the instant incorporated judicial police officer, as the original applicant for the examination of the suspect of G, who was the president of the instant incorporated association, did not appear in the court of first instance, and G rejected the admissibility of evidence on the ground that the requirements under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act are not satisfied, but G cannot make a statement on the suffering of elderly dementia.

If different evidences submitted by the prosecutor are examined, the facts charged in this case shall be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of the first instance that acquitted the defendant for lack of evidence is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. (i) As to the admissibility of a suspect interrogation protocol against G prepared by a judicial police officer, the phrase “when the statement or preparation is made under particularly reliable circumstances” as referred to in Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to cases where there is little room for false intervention in the preparation of the content of the statement, protocol or document, and where there is any specific and external circumstance to guarantee the credibility or arbitability of the contents of the statement.

B. Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act recognizes admissibility of evidence of a statement made or prepared by a witness when the whereabouts of the witness is unknown. As such, the Criminal Procedure Act allows admissibility of evidence of a statement made by the witness, including the statement of witness, only when meeting strict requirements, such as guaranteeing the cross-examination right of the accused or his/her defense counsel with respect to such written evidence as the statement of witness under Article 312 or 313, thereby allowing exceptions to the basic principles, such as the principle of direct psychologicalism, and granting the original person the admissibility of evidence without any opportunity to cross-examine the witness.