명예훼손
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding), at the time and place specified in the facts charged in this case, the D Association E Women’s Meeting was held, but at that place, B took the words as described in the facts charged in this case into consideration to other female members, including the Defendant, as seen in sign language as stated in the facts charged in this case, and the Defendant was merely humd with the meaning that he was aware of, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts against the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The probative value or credibility of a confession in the court of first instance cannot be deemed to be doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession in the court of appeal differs from the statement in the appellate court. In determining the credibility of a confession, considering the following: (a) whether the content of the confession statement itself has objectively rationality; (b) the motive or reason behind the confession; (c) what is the reason leading up to the confession; and (d) whether there is any conflict or inconsistency with the confession among circumstantial evidence other than the confession, it shall be determined as to whether the confession in the court of first instance has a situation to have a reasonable doubt as to the grounds stipulated in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or in the motive or process
(Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4091 Decided September 28, 2001). B.
In the instant case, the Defendant returned to the court of first instance and denied the facts charged in the instant case at the court of first instance. However, in full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, taking into account the following circumstances: (i) to (vii), it is justifiable for the court below to find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that the Defendant’s confession in the investigative agency and the court of original instance had credibility; and (ii) the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is not acceptable.
(1) The defendant is a police.