beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals that the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim, in full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, where the victim's investigative agency and the court of original instance recognized the credibility of each of the statements in the facts charged of this case as specific and consistent.
Nevertheless, the lower judgment that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do7261, Nov. 10, 201). In addition, in light of the spirit of substantial direct cross-examination adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous, or in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unreasonable to maintain the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court based on the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted until the closing of argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should respect the determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).
For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that it is difficult to believe the victim’s statement as it is and the remaining evidence alone cannot be deemed that the facts charged were proven to the extent that it excludes reasonable doubt.
The lower court’s aforementioned determination.