beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) although there was a misunderstanding of facts that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim at the time and place stated in the indictment, there was no fact that the Defendant attempted to rape. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case; (b) there was an error of misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (c) The sentence sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (4 years of imprisonment
B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. 1) The lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court determined that the Defendant commenced rape and attempted to rape and sustained bodily injury on the part of the victim, as stated in the facts constituting a crime, by taking account of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court under the title of “judgment on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion”. 2) The lower court’s conclusion is correct if it is determined based on the legal principles on the criteria for determining the credibility of the statement of the victim of sexual assault, the rules of evidence, and the evidence, and it cannot be said that there was no error of law that affected the conclusion
[The police officer stated the facts of injury corresponding to the facts charged of the instant case (the Defendant stated to the same effect as the police officer who found the victim's hospital on the day of the instant case to the effect that it was not rape) and reversed the previous police's statement, and the victim also stated to the same effect, but there is insufficient data to acknowledge it differently.
In the prosecutor's office and the first instance court, the statement that there was no possibility of rape, reversed the statement, and even before receiving the agreed amount, the defendant tried to rape in telephone conversations with the prosecutor's assistant.