logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.30 2014노4168
강제추행등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit indecent acts and assault, such as indecent acts entered in the facts charged.

CCTV images do not have a face to commit a crime.

Although a witness made a statement that he/she had a black box, he/she did not submit a black image material.

The statements of the victim are not consistent with the body and consistency.

The 112 Report is simply made by the defendant that he/she was driving the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and finding guilty of the charges of indecent act by compulsion and assault of this case.

B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 7 million imposed by the court below is too heavy.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, when considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluation of credibility in accordance with the spirit of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or, in exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance is significantly unreasonable in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional examination of evidence made by the time of closing argument at the appellate court’s closing of argument (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012) and the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court.

(1) The injured party at the lower court stated that "the injured party was able to dived forward and down by the defendant, and that part of the above body was supported by him.

arrow