beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.08.26 2019노1794

모욕

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles ① The victim’s statement in the court below is not admissible as the answer is different depending on the question.

(2) Videos produced by a prosecutor as evidence shall be inadmissible because some of the compilations are omitted.

B. The victim of misunderstanding of facts (1) caused a mistake of fact that the victim could, at the time, allow the defendant who should get the subway to get a direct subway, to use the tickets so that he/she could have issued the tickets, and the defendant who was higher than that of the instant facts charged came to engage in the same act as that of the instant facts charged, this constitutes a justifiable act

(2) It is difficult for the defendant to insult the victim in a performance because there is almost little number of people in the office of service at the time.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the misapprehension of legal principles regarding the victim's legal statement 1) The victim's reversal of part of his/her testimony in the process of making an oath and making a statement by attending as a witness cannot be said to be inadmissible as evidence. Therefore, even if the defendant's assertion on this part of the defendant decides to the effect that the defendant's credibility of the above statement is low, the credibility of the above statement is recognized in light of the contents of the statement and the video taken at the time of the statement, etc.

(2) The images contained in the video CD, submitted by the Prosecutor as admissibility of the video CDs, were taken at the time of the victim’s shooting or taken again the CCTV reproduction page inside the C Station at the time, and the said images were edited disadvantageous to the Defendant.

There is no evidence to deem that there has been some omission in part of the part favorable to the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant alleged that the lower court had the same purport, and the lower court also asserted the place where the instant crime was committed, the video CD.