beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.04.05 2017노3147

강간치상

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of reasons for appeal: Since the victim misunderstanding the facts consistently and specifically stated the major damage, the statement has credibility.

A letter message sent by the injured party after the case (a refusal to enter a telecom) is denied.

was not inconsistent with the objective truth at the time (the fact that the victim entered the drunkenel).

However, the defendant's assertion that the defendant's sexual organ was self-oriented in the toilet without inserting it into a negative book violates the result of the defendant's response to a request for appraisal that the defendant's DNA was detected in the appearance and appearance of the victim.

In addition, the CCTV alone did not take part in the victim.

It shall not be readily concluded.

Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, the facts charged are sufficiently proven.

However, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that the court below judged that there is no proof of a crime.

2. In light of the content of the judgment of the first instance and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in the determination.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to view the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance trial and the result of an additional examination of evidence up to the closing of the appellate trial, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the grounds that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is different from the appellate court’s judgment, except in exceptional cases where it is deemed that it is significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial.

In particular, if the first trial decision rejecting the credibility of the witness's statement supporting the facts charged is followed, it would be sufficient and acceptable in light of the presumption of innocence and the principle of criminal burden of proof.