beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant does not contain assault or injury to the victims, and the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the punishment (one million won of a fine) imposed by the court below is unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. In determining the credibility of the victim's statement, the main part of the victim's statement is consistent in determining the credibility of the victim's statement, and there is no unreasonable or contradictory part in light of the empirical rule, or there is no obvious motive or reason to make a false statement against the defendant, so long as the defendant's motive or reason to make a false statement is not clearly revealed, the victim's credibility of the victim's statement shall not be rejected without any justifiable reason, on the ground that there is a difference in the expression, which appears to be inconsistent with the minor part due to the difference in the expression, or the first conclusive statement was changed to a somewhat
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7543 Decided December 9, 2010, etc.). However, around 11:00 on August 19, 2010, the victim B and D made a statement from the investigative agency to the trial, that the defendant used the victim B's arms at the victim's underground parking lot in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, and that on the same day, around 11:10 on around 11:10, the defendant's dwelling located in the above C apartment 403, and used the victim's parts of the two arms of the victim B as his hand, and the victims stated D, which was the victim's rejection of the victim B who was said at the next time, were sealed by the investigative agency, and the victims stated in the above part of the facts charged, but the defendant did not reverse the statement from the investigative agency, which was included in the above part of the facts charged.