Cases where there is an error of misconception of facts by mistake of the rules of evidence

Cases where the rules of evidence are erroneous as to mistake of facts.

Article 337 of the Criminal Act, Article 335 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 69No485 delivered on October 18, 1969

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The gist of the grounds of appeal by the defendant and the defense counsel is that it violates the rules of evidence that the defendant is guilty despite the lack of the recognition of the criminal facts of the quasi-Robbery even after considering the evidence at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The court below rejected the defendant's appeal that the witness's testimony at the court of first instance did not constitute a criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's witness at the court of first instance. According to the witness's witness at the court of first instance's process, the witness (the witness's statement is recognized as a witness's misunderstanding)'s witness's witness's criminal defendant's witness's witness's criminal defendant's witness's criminal defendant's witness's thring up to about 10 joints with domestic bicycle's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's criminal defendant's witness's criminal defendant's witness's witness's witness's testimony, and thus, the defendant's witness's witness's witness's testimony is not erroneous.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges under Articles 390, 391, and 397 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Justices B-Bhan (Presiding Judge) and B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-Jed