The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

It is reasonable to view that the admissibility of each evidence containing the original person D and C’s statement is recognized in accordance with Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act. According to this, the original judgment which acquitted the defendant even though the defendant was found to have taken money by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged, is erroneous in matters of mistake of facts.

The summary of the judgment of the court below is as follows. A.

The admissibility of evidence of the evidence list No. 1 and No. 30 among the evidence list No. 4, among the evidence list No. 30, among the evidence list No. 30, D's statement part among the No. 36, D's statement part among the No. 40, and No. 40, the court tried to open the 10th court date in the first floor of the I Hospital where D is hospitalized on May 9, 2019 to examine D and proceed with the examination of D's evidence, but D's statement clearly expressed its intention not to testify despite several recommendations, it cannot be deemed that the establishment of each evidence was not recognized by D's statement. In addition, it is difficult to view that D's refusal of testimony constitutes a cause under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it is difficult to make a statement due to disease in light of D's movement and statement contents at the time, each of the above evidence is admissible under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, each of the above evidences cannot be used as evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.

B. The Defendant did not agree to use as evidence the admissibility of evidence of No. 43 of the evidence protocol as evidence against C, and the authenticity was not acknowledged by the statement of C, the original person making the statement.

According to the records, according to the prosecutor's location investigation direction as to C, the judicial police officer sent answers from the owner of the building to the JtelK in the Gunsan-si, the domicile of C around June 30, 2018, that C resides in the above building, and C makes telephone conversations with C.