Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. Defendant 1) On the grounds that there was a problem in the criminal identification procedure by which the victim misunderstanding of facts identified the Defendant as the offender, and the victim’s statement was not reliable, the lower court publicly insulting the victim.

In light of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor prior to the judgment.

The crime of this case is a crime falling under Article 311 of the Criminal Act, and the statutory penalty is imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not more than one year, or a fine not exceeding two million won.

In this regard, the court below sentenced the defendant to a fine exceeding 2 million won, which is the upper limit of the fine, and sentenced to a fine exceeding 5 million won, so the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

The Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, even if there is a ground for ex officio reversal.

B. In general, in a criminal identification procedure based on the appearance, etc. of the suspect's appearance, etc. of the suspect, allowing the suspect to identify the criminal by presenting only one photograph of the suspect to the witness during the criminal identification procedure, due to the limitation of human memory, inaccurateness and specific circumstances that the suspect is suspected of being the criminal, its credibility is low due to the possibility that the suspect can be a witness of an in-depth cancer that the suspect is suspected of being the criminal.

However, in addition to the victim's statement, in cases where there are additional circumstances such as whether there are other circumstances to suspect the suspect as the offender, it may be assessed differently (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do12111, Jun. 11, 2009, etc.). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.