beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. The Defendant alleged that he had sexual intercourse with the victim by either indecent act or by force as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the part of the victim’s statements without credibility.
B. In the appellate court’s trial process, there is no new objective reason that could affect the formation of documentary evidence, and in the absence of reasonable grounds to deem that the determination of the first instance court was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was significantly unfair due to the contrary to logical and empirical rules, the judgment on the acknowledgement of facts in the first instance shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected this assertion in detail in the “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” of the judgment.
There is no reasonable ground to deem that it is remarkably unfair to maintain the judgment as it is in violation of logical and empirical rules that the judgment of evidence was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was against the logical and empirical rules.
In addition, the contents of witness X's testimony or the contents of the defendant's examination are merely repeated to repeat the statements of the court below, and there is no other objective reason that may affect the formation of perjury.
The lower judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged in the Defendant, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the lower court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it shall be respected (see Supreme Court Decision 23 July 23, 2015).