beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) has not inflicted any bodily injury upon the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case.
2. Determination
A. In light of the spirit of substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance trial witness was clearly erroneous.
Except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court by taking account of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of pleadings, the appellate court shall respect the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court.
B. Comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the victim suffered bodily injury, such as assaulting the Defendant consistently at the investigative agency and the court of original instance.
The fact that the Defendant stated, ② the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, filed a claim with the victim. ③ The instant case occurred on February 11, 2017, and the victim was diagnosed by the hospital on February 13, 2017, “the sponse due to the exposure of the sponse on the left side of the spons,” and there is no circumstance for the victim to make a false statement about the circumstances of the sponse, ④ the victim was self-harmed, and rather, the Defendant did not discover the circumstances that the sponse the sponse of the sponse, and rather, according to the fact inquiry by the lower court, the injury suffered by the victim appears to have been affected by any external force, and ⑤ the Defendant requested the agreement to the victim after the issuance of the instant case. In light of the above, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the sponse was damaged by the victim.