Criminal Procedure Law of South Korea was amended on a large scale in 2007. This article is concentrated on the valuation and interpretation of the revised provisions about hearsay evidence, which has been one of the hottest issues in the work of amendment. First of all, the new provisions of hearsay evidence may well be regarded as the way for efficient criminal justice, although Presidential Committee on Judical Reform announces officially the intensification of court initiative as the utmost goal of amendment. In the new system, the statement of the accused in investigation can be used as the evidence of proving himself guilty more than now. As the result, the initiative of criminal justice could be bestowed on investigative institutions, especially prosecutor, rather than court. This means that the work of the so-called ‘Judical Reform' ran off the rails at least in the management of hearsay evidence. It doesn't matter which groups are responsible for the derailment, so this article doesn't dispute with the self-styled reformists who attribute their failure to the opposition of hard-liners. A matter of consequence is that the officially propagandized pointing of amendment cannot be available for the interpretation of the revised provisions about hearsay evidence. This article also analyzes the proof capability of hearsay evidence including document and second statement, as follows: ① Prosecutor's document recording the interrogation of the accused could be widely used as the evidence to convict him, while police's respondence could be easily eliminated from the sphere of evidence by the objection of the accused of his attorney. ② Investigator's document recording the statement of a witness could be also more widely used as the evidence to convict the accused than now, without distinction of prosecutor and police. ③ Investigator's testimony against the accused could be used as the evidence separately from his document, which is noteworthy in the point of including police's testimony. ④ Videotapes recording the interrogation of the accused could be used as the evidence to prove the truth of document recording his statement, and the same goes for videotapes recording the statement of a witness.