beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Although there is a fact that the defendant misunderstanding the summary of the grounds for appeal assaulted the victim D, there is no fact at the time of fire extinguishing, and the victim D voluntarily gives cash, and the defendant is not forcibly taken.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of robbery among the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
It is doubtful that the probative value or credibility of a confession made by the defendant in the court of first instance is doubtful solely on the ground that the confession made by the defendant in the court of first instance differs from the legal statement in the appellate court.
In determining the credibility of confessions, the credibility of confessions should be determined in consideration of whether the contents of confessions are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason of confessions, what is the background leading up to confessions, and what does not conflict with the confessions among other evidence than confessions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1994, Jun. 26, 2008; 2010Do2556, Apr. 29, 2010). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the confessions made by the defendant in the court of the court in this part are sufficiently recognized as credibility, and the police statements, etc. on victim D are evidence that reinforces the confessions of the defendant in this part of the facts charged, and there is no error of law that the court below erred by misapprehending the facts supporting the confessions of the defendant and this part of the facts charged as evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.
A) The Defendant’s statement in the victim D’s police statement (2016 Gohap 205 to 206 of the investigation records) is low.