특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(보복협박등)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. The Defendant alleged that he actually committed an indecent act by F, and thus, the Defendant did not know F as he was forced to commit an indecent act by F, and the victim C only told that “may be punished for perjury,” and did not intimidation for the purpose of retaliation against testimony.
The argument is asserted.
B. In a case where there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of conviction during the appellate trial’s trial process, and there is no reasonable ground to deem that the determination of evidence for the first instance was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was significantly unfair due to the contrary to logical and empirical rules, the judgment on the recognition of facts in the first instance should not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted the same purport at the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of the detailed circumstances, etc. in the item of “the determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” and convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.
Examining the evidence legitimately adopted and examined by the court below in a thorough comparison with the circumstances admitted by the court below, there is no reasonable ground to deem that the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous in this part of the judgment, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is significantly unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules.
B. There is no objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the course of this court's hearing.
This part of the judgment of the court below is justified.
Defendant
We do not accept the argument.
2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the court below is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it shall be respected (Supreme Court Decision 23 July 23, 2015).