beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant did not look at E at the date and place indicated in the facts charged.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and two hundred hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) The lower court held that the Defendant’s interrogation protocol of the Defendant was written in E, E’s second police interrogation protocol of the Defendant, and E’s written statement of the police protocol of the Defendant and E’s written statement of the Defendant (hereinafter collectively “E’s written statement evidence”).
A) Recognizing the admissibility of hearsay evidence, the evidence was found guilty. In order to use the protocol under Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act as evidence pursuant to Article 314 of the same Act, a person who needs to make a statement on the trial date is unable to appear and make a statement in the public judgment due to death, disease, foreign residence, unknown whereabouts, and other causes corresponding thereto. Whether the requirements under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provide exceptions to the direct principle and the hearsay rule, are met must be strictly examined. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the requirements for the admissibility of hearsay evidence. Thus, for such cases, the prosecutor must prove the fact that the witness was unable to appear in the court even though he/she made possible and sufficiently efforts to make the witness appear in the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do2602, Sept. 9, 2010; 2013Do501, Oct. 17, 2013).
In the court below, the defendant adopted E as a witness at the request of the prosecutor and summoned the E, but it became impossible to serve several times due to the absence of a closed door or the addressee's unknown, and then received the investigation result to the effect that the location of the defendant cannot be known by investigating the location, such as the request for detection of location.
(b).