beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant, like others, only one of the investors, did not receive similar information.
2. Determination
A. Under the current Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court shall be based on the inner judgment, but the so-called ex post facto review character, which has a substantial part of the ex post facto core elements, and thus, the appellate court should consider the characteristics of the structure of the first instance judgment when determining the legitimacy of the judgment in the appellate court.
Therefore, when an appellate court intends to re-examine the first deliberation decision after re-evaluation of the first deliberation, even though there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence during the trial process, and to reverse the first deliberation decision after the ex post facto deliberation, there is a reasonable reason to deem that the first deliberation decision was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, and without any such exceptional circumstance, the judgment on the acknowledgement of facts in the first deliberation should not be reversed without permission.
It accords with the spirit of substantial direct deliberation, which serves as the basis of a trial-oriented principle that the conviction and innocence in a criminal case ought to be formed through a court-oriented trial, and only the evidence directly examined in the presence of a judge, as the basis of a trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). (b) The Defendant asserted the same in the lower court, and the lower court did not accept the assertion on detailed grounds.
Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with the partial statement and records of Q Q witness at the court below, it is just and acceptable. It is reasonable to view that the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the fact finding is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules.