beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.
Defendant
C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
except that this judgment.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In relation to the forgery of securities and the exercise of the same in the facts charged in this case, the Defendant only filled a blank note (hereinafter “the Promissory note in this case”) as stated in this part of the facts charged by AD (Co-Defendant B) with knowledge that he had the authority to fill the blank part, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant case, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, and Defendant C: one year) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on Defendant A’s grounds for appeal
A. In determining the credibility of a confession, it cannot be said that the probative value or credibility of the confession is doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession at the court of first instance differs from the testimony at the court of appeal. In determining the credibility of a confession, considering the following: (a) the contents of the confession’s statement per se are objectively rational; (b) the motive or reason behind the confession; and (c) the background leading up to the confession is what kind of circumstantial evidence other than the confession, and (d) the circumstances leading up to the confession do not conflict with or conflict with the confession, it should be determined whether the confession of the defendant had a situation to give reasonable doubts of the motive or process prescribed in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4091, Sept. 28, 2001). (b) The Defendant returned to the instant case and health relative; and (d) the Defendant was led to confession at the court on the fourth trial date, but the lower court denied it in the court on the lawful basis of the evidence duly admitted.