beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.11.06 2020노1001

모욕

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The Defendant did not insult the victim as stated in the facts charged.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 1,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s statement of confession that recognized all his/her own crime in the court cannot be easily rejected unless there is an explanation that it is possible to understand the circumstances leading to the confession, and the Defendant’s confession in the investigative agency and the court of original instance is different from his/her statement in the court of appeal cannot be said to be doubtful of the probative value or credibility of the confession.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2556, Apr. 29, 2010). The Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime on the first day of the lower court’s trial, and even if examining all the records of the instant case, it is difficult to view that there is any fact or circumstance that could undermine the credibility of a confession statement made by the Defendant

(1) The court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts, such as the defendant's assertion, in full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, since the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the victim was openly insulting as stated in the facts charged, and the court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is not erroneous.

B. The sentencing indicated in the records and arguments of this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, background of the crime, method of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., is based on the fact that the Defendant did not recognize his responsibility while denying the crime of this case, the Defendant did not agree with the victim, the Defendant had a history of criminal punishment more than once.