logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.04.28 2016도924
강제추행등
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

Criminal facts have to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim, and that the victim was injured, and rejected the allegation of the grounds for appeal by mistake of facts.

The grounds of appeal disputing the determination of facts by the lower court on the grounds of insufficient credibility of the victim’s statement are merely erroneous in the determination of evidence and probative value, which belong to the lower court’s free judgment. In addition, even when examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the credibility of the victim’s statement and the presumption of innocence, or by exceeding the bounds of free conviction doctrine, contrary to logical and empirical rules, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only a case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed is allowed to be lodged on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair in the instant case where a court ordered the Defendant to complete a minor imprisonment and a sexual assault treatment program cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

arrow