logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.06.05 2017노2691
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(공중밀집장소에서의추행)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant's grandchildren have contacted the victim's body by mistake of fact, and there is no fact that the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of assessing the credibility of the witness’s statement in accordance with the spirit of substantial direct deliberation adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance court’s judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court clearly erroneous determination as to the credibility of the witness statement made by the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court.

Unless there exist special circumstances, or comprehensively considering the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of pleadings, maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is clearly unfair, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 2009; 2010Do3846, Jun. 24, 2010). In addition, the degree of the formation of the first instance judgment on the conviction of the witness of the first instance trial should be sufficient to have a reasonable doubt, but it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and the rejection of evidence without reasonable grounds recognized as probative value goes beyond the limit of free evaluation, and it is not consistent solely on the ground that the statement made by the witness of the first instance court goes beyond the bounds of free evaluation.

arrow