logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2014.12.24 2013노584
청소년보호법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The grounds for appeal (the factual errors) by the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, requested E, F, G, H, and I to present identification cards and confirmed that they were born in 192 and sold alcoholic beverages, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on a different premise, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluation of credibility in accordance with the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the principle of court-oriented trial, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the first instance court’s judgment on the ground that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or in exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance is considerably unreasonable in full view of the results of the first instance’s examination and the results of additional examination of evidence conducted by the time of closing argument in the appellate court, on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is different from the judgment made by the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do12112 Decided August 20, 2009, etc.). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the health team, E, F, G, and H stated to the effect that the investigative agency did not consistently present the identification card to the court of original trial, and that each of the above statements is credibility.

arrow