beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1 did not infringe upon the victim D’s residence, such as the facts stated in paragraph (1) of the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance in light of the evidence examination conducted in the first instance court, unless there exist special circumstances to deem that it is clearly erroneous or that maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance in light of the first instance court’s results of the first instance examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument in the appellate court is highly unfair. Thus, the appellate court should not
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3846 Decided June 24, 2010, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the victim consistently stated from the investigative agency to the effect that “it was difficult for the victim to take advantage of the victim’s motive and desire and avoid disturbance despite the victim’s detention that the Defendant would not enter the place of drinking on the day of the instant case,” and there was no other circumstance to dismiss the credibility of the statement. Thus, the victim cannot be said to be lacking credibility solely on the ground that the victim is aged.
Therefore, the credibility of the victim's statement can be recognized, and this conclusion can be concluded.