beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2013.07.26 2013노1200

도로교통법위반(음주운전)

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal stated that C of the lower court’s second trial on the date of the lower court’s second trial that the Defendant could not be deemed to drive Oral Ba, but it cannot be believed to have reversed the statement made by the investigative agency and made a false statement because there is a possibility of retaliation from the Defendant, and the judgment became final and conclusive upon conviction of C due to this reason. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, even though C’s investigative agency and the lower court’s statement on the fourth trial date, which could be found guilty of

2. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluation of credibility according to the spirit of substantial direct cross-examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, if there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court clearly erred in the determination of credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or if it is highly unfair to maintain the first instance court’s determination on credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court based on the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted until the time of closing argument in the appellate court, the appellate court may not reverse the first instance court’s determination on credibility solely on the ground that the first instance court’s determination on credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance differs from the appellate court’s determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). Examining the evidence duly examined in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s rejection of credibility of testimony made by Defendant C’s testimony.