성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant alleged misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is to have taken the body of the victim with an implied consent or consent from the victim G (hereinafter “victim”).
Nevertheless, the court below believed only the statements of the victim without credibility and taken the body against the victim's will.
Since the judgment of the court below was pronounced guilty against the defendant, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s wrongful assertion of sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (1) reveals credibility in the victim G’s investigative agency and court in full view of the following legal principles and the circumstances revealed in the records and arguments.
Based on the judgment, the defendant was convicted.
In determining the credibility of the statements made by the victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court shall evaluate the credibility of the statements, as well as whether the contents of the statements themselves conform to the rationality, logical and contradictions, or rule of experience, or conforms to the statements made by the third party, physical evidence, or third party. The court shall, after taking an oath before a judge, take into account various circumstances that make it difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, such as the appearance and attitude of the witness who is going to make a statement in the open court, and the pen of the statement, and shall not reject the statements made by the victim, etc., unless there is any separate evidence to deem that the statements made by the witness, including the victim, are mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, objectively and objectively (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). The defendant and the defense counsel, even though the victim knew the defendant and the H from the beginning to the point of view of the above circumstances.