beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in erroneous determination of facts since the defendant made a false statement contrary to memory.
B. In light of the legal principles, Co-defendants, who are not co-defendants, should deny the eligibility for witness in the examination of his crime, so the Defendant does not have the eligibility for witness in the Gwangju District Court Decision 201Da2617, 2774 case (hereinafter “relevant case”).
(2) Even though Co-Defendant 2, who is not an accomplice, was present as a witness and notified by the presiding judge of the right to refuse to testify, if he refuses to testify after being asked about his crime, he cannot expect that he will express his crime and exercise the right to refuse to testify. The defendant has no possibility of expectation of lawful act.
C. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, and forty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of fact, the defendant made a false statement that "no person has the original storage of DNA" against his memory in the case in question, despite the fact that he had the original storage of DNA. It is sufficiently recognized that the defendant made a false statement. The above argument of the defendant is without merit.
B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the co-defendant, who is an accomplice, cannot be a witness to the facts charged against another co-defendant in the status of the defendant in the litigation procedure, but, see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3300 decided Jun. 26, 2008, see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3300 decided Jun. 26, 200, the co-defendant, who is merely an accomplice
Supreme Court Decision 82Do1000 delivered on September 14, 1982: Co-defendant who was prosecuted for a separate crime from the defendant and is conducting a consolidated trial shall be subject to the criminal facts of the defendant.