logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.10.25 2018노623
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동폭행)
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) did not assault the victims.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds of the statement of the victims with no credibility. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s judgment, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the instant facts charged and rejected the Defendants’ assertion based on the adopted evidence.

B. 1) In light of the spirit of substantial direct deliberation under the Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance trial, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial was clearly erroneous in its determination.

Unless there exist special circumstances to view that maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance trial is remarkably unfair, or considering 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 not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance trial differs from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do2551, Apr. 15, 2016). B) In determining the credibility of a statement made by a victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court shall assess the credibility of the statement by considering all the circumstances, such as the reasonableness, logical contradiction, or inconsistency with the rule of experience or the compliance with the third party’s statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do7917, Jan. 30, 209).

arrow