The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles and mistake of facts);

A. In light of various circumstances, the part that recognized the same offense as the entries in the facts charged at the time when the defendant was investigated in the E’s statement and E’s statement in the lower court court’s trial constitutes “when the statement is made under particularly reliable circumstances” under Article 316(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on admissibility of evidence, thereby rejecting the admissibility of the aforementioned part of E’s statement.

B. Even if the part of E’s hearsay statement containing the above Defendant’s statement cannot be admitted as evidence because it has no admissibility of evidence, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case only with other evidence, but found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby acquitted the Defendant

2. Determination

A. When a statement made by a person other than the defendant at a preparatory hearing or at a public trial contains a statement of the defendant, it may be admitted as evidence only when the statement is made under particularly reliable circumstances pursuant to Article 316(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The protocol in which the statement was made in a preparatory hearing or at a public trial proceeding shall fall under cases where its admissibility is recognized pursuant to Articles 312 through 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it shall be exceptionally admitted as evidence when it satisfies the above conditions under Article 316(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. "When the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances" under Article 316(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to cases where there is little room for false intervention that the statement was made, and specific and external circumstances exist to guarantee the credibility or voluntariness of the contents of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do787, Jul. 37, 2007). 207.