beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal D is without credibility of the statement as the complainant, and the defendant did not intrude into the residence of the victim.
2. Determination:
A. In light of the content of the judgment of the first instance court and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, if there are extenuating circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or if the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is clearly unreasonable in light of the results of the first instance’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time the argument in the appellate trial was concluded, the appellate court should not reverse the first instance judgment solely on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do827, Oct. 14, 2010; 2013Do11802, Nov. 28, 2013).
Judgment
In the lower court, the Defendant denied the same purport as the grounds for appeal, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charge of this case by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, it is difficult to see that there was a special circumstance to deem that the lower court erred in its determination as to the credibility of each statement by witnesses D and E, and that the Defendant invaded upon the victim’s residence as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is groundless.
(1) The injured party consistently from the investigative agency to the court of original trial, and from May 17, 2017, the accused was living together in the meeting room of the management office, and the injured party went to the seat of the injured party.