beta
Text
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts
A. The alleged defendant, while returning to the victim, did not have raped the victim while establishing a sexual intercourse on July 2014, and did not commit an indecent act by force against the victim on or around December 25, 2015.
However, the court below held that only the statements of the victim are inconsistent and found guilty of all the facts charged.
B. In a case where there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the appellate trial’s trial process, and there is no reasonable ground to deem that the judgment of the first instance court was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., the judgment of the first instance court on the acknowledgement of facts should not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). While the Defendant submitted photographs to the court before this court, the relevant pictures were submitted only to prove the situation at the time of the Defendant’s initial sexual relationship with the victim, and the victim did not appear on the ground that the victim was the Defendant and the victim was sexual intercourse with the victim.
On December 25, 2015, it is insufficient to provide evidence to prove the situation.
In addition, the Defendant submitted the call details inquiry, guidance, etc. in this court as evidence, but this only proves that the call was made at a specific place from a specific point of view on December 25, 2015, and furthermore, it is insufficient to provide evidence to support the fact that the Defendant did not assault the victim on December 25, 2015, and that the Defendant did not commit an indecent act on the part of the victim with a knife on 20:00 on the same day.
In addition, there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of evidence in the trial process of this court, and the court below decided it.