logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.12.08 2016노4014
강제추행
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

In light of the prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) the victim E consistently states the situation in which the defendant was indecently committed by the investigative agency and the court of original instance, and the defendant also acknowledges the fact that the victim was sworn, and at the time of the police investigation, the police stated that “the victim was scarfed with scarfs below the victim’s chain,” the credibility of the victim’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case can be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the credibility of the victim E’s statement without any reasonable ground and found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

Considering the difference between the original court and the appellate court based on the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, the lower court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the original instance is clearly erroneous in light of the content of the lower judgment and the evidence duly examined in the lower court, or there are exceptional circumstances where maintaining the lower court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the original instance based on the results of the examination of evidence and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument in the appellate trial, the appellate court should not reverse without permission on the ground that the lower court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the original instance differs from the appellate court’s determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012; 2008Do4499, Jul. 29, 2010; 2004Do496, Nov. 24, 2006).

arrow