beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In a misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, at the time of committing the instant crime, the victim F was under the influence of alcohol, thereby making it impossible to resist.
It is difficult to see that the confessions of the defendant and the statements of the victim, which correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, are not reliable in light of objective circumstances.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of sexual assault treatment lectures) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the admissibility or credibility of the confession is doubtful solely on the ground that the confession in the court of first instance at the court of appeal differs from the legal statement at the court of appeal in the appellate trial.
In determining the credibility of a confession, it is not possible to determine whether there is a situation in which the defendant's confession has a reasonable doubt in the grounds prescribed in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act or in the motive or process of confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4091, Sept. 28, 2001) in light of the following: (a) whether the content of the confession's statement itself has an objective rationality; (b) the motive or reason behind the confession; (c) what is the motive or reason why the confession was made; and (d) the circumstances other than the confession do not conflict with the confession; and (d) whether there is sexual intercourse between the victim and the prosecutor's office after the investigation conducted on December 29, 201 at the time of the instant crime on November 11, 2016 with the victim at the time of the instant crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4091, Nov. 1, 2016).