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. The lower court’s sentencing (unfair sentencing) of the Defendant and the person who requested to attach an attachment order (an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for a period of 6 years and 40 hours, an order to restrict employment between five years, and confiscation) is unreasonable.
B. A prosecutor 1) The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged even though the Defendant and the person who requested to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) committed rape and inflicted bodily injury upon the victim G, and the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged (misunderstanding of facts). B) The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable and unfair (unfair sentencing). (2) The Defendant committed a sexual crime twice or more, and the lower court dismissed the Defendant’s request to attach an attachment order even if the Defendant and the person who requested to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) were admitted.
2. Determination
A. Determination as to the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts regarding the Defendant’s case ought to be made on the basis of credibility in determining the credibility of the victim’s statement, which is supported by the facts charged (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). Where the Defendant strongly denies the entire facts charged, direct evidence consistent with the facts charged in the record is due to the victim’s statement, and the remainder of evidence is merely a technical evidence based on the victim’s statement, etc., and the victim’s statement is sufficient to find guilty solely on the part of the victim’s statement, such as the appearance or attitude of the witness who is going to make a statement in the open court after being sworn at the presence of a judge, and a witness’s appearance or attitude, and a pen of the statement, which is difficult to be recorded in the witness examination protocol, by directly observing various circumstances that are difficult to record (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012).