beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape by Blood Relatives, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing), on January 1, 2018, Defendant and the person against whom an attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) committed an attempted rape of the victim on the ground that the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) attempted to commit rape (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles) did not reach the fact or insertion, and even if the Defendant’s act was found guilty, the lower court’s sentencing (i.e., imprisonment with labor for seven years and eight hours, order to complete sexual assault treatment programs for five years, order to restrict employment) is too unreasonable (unfair sentencing). (ii) The Prosecutor’s (misunderstanding of facts, legal principles, misunderstanding of legal principles, unreasonable sentencing, and order to attach an attachment order). The lower court acquitted the Defendant of any unjust indecent act committed by the Defendant’s wife on September 2, 2009 (unfair sentencing).
2. Determination
A. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the Defendant’s instant case ) In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility in accordance with the spirit of substantial direct trial adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court’s first instance trial.
The first instance court held that there are special circumstances or the results of the first instance court's examination of evidence and the results of additional examination of evidence conducted not later than the closing of the appellate trial.