beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) could not block the instant crime because there was no yellow dust on the date and time of the instant criminal charge, such as having been investigated by the Gowon Police Station in the Gobuk Police Station on the charge of larceny, the lower court’s conviction of this part of the facts charged against the Defendant was based on mistake of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. A prosecutor 1) Taking into account the various sentencing conditions of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s imprisonment (one-year imprisonment, etc.) against the Defendant is deemed unreasonable. 2) The lower court’s dismissal of the Defendant’s claim on the attachment order to recognize the risk of recidivism of sexual crimes, even if the Defendant’s claim on the attachment order is accepted.
2. Determination
A. In determining the credibility of the statements made by the victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court of appeal shall not dismiss the credibility of the statements made by the victim, etc., unless there are any other evidence that can be objectively deemed as not having credibility in light of the following: (a) whether the contents of the statements themselves conform to the rationality, logic, and empirical rule; (b) whether the evidence or third party’s statement conforms to the witness evidence or evidence; and (c) the appearance or attitude of the witness, and the penance of the statement made in the open court after being sworn before a judge; and (d) whether the witness statement made in the open court, such as the appearance and appearance of the witness who are being recorded in the witness in the witness protocol, and the appearance and appearance of the statement, which are difficult to record, are assessed by directly observing various circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 209); and (c) whether the statements made by the witness, including the victim, are consistent and consistent with the facts charged with the facts charged.