2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant was similar to the summary of the grounds for appeal, but the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds, and convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged.

The Defendant and the defense counsel asserts to the effect that “the Defendant’s purchase of the victim’s arms is consistent, but the victim suffers from the phone call at the time of reporting to the police, and thus becomes the arms of the victim suffering from the phone call while speaking for the victim. Considering the aforementioned circumstances, it is difficult to deem that there is illegality in the Defendant’s behavior. Considering the aforementioned circumstances, the victim consistently states from the investigative agency to the court about the situation before the crime, the background of the crime, the method of the crime, and the method of the crime of the Defendant.” Considering the CCTV video contents and the fact that the victim does not seem to have any circumstance that could make a false statement in this court, credibility is recognized. In light of the circumstances revealed by the record, the victim’s statement is recognized. In other words, considering the Defendant’s purpose and intent of selling the victim’s arms at the time, the Defendant appears to have illegality in the criminal facts stated in the Defendant’s judgment. Accordingly, the argument is unacceptable.

B. The first instance court’s decision is to re-examine the first instance court’s decision after its ex post facto determination, in the absence of a new objective reason that could affect the formation of documentary evidence in the process of the trial.