beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the victim was presented by the investigative agency only one photograph of the accused with the photograph of the suspect, and the accused was identified as the offender while keeping the status investigated by the investigative agency. The victim’s statement is in accordance with the erroneous criminal identification procedure, whose credibility is lower, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have proved that the victim was the accused by intrusion into female toilets, thereby stealing him/her.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which pronounced the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misconception of facts.
2. Determination
A. In the criminal identification procedure based on the appearance, etc. of the suspect in accordance with the relevant legal principles, one suspect alone is a witness, or only one photograph of the suspect is presented to the witness to confirm the suspect's identity, due to the limitation and inaccuracy of human memory and the possibility that the suspect or a person on his/her photograph is suspected of being a criminal under the specific circumstances, the witness's statement in the criminal identification procedure according to such a method is low credibility. However, there are other circumstances to suspect the suspect as a criminal in addition to the witness's statement whether the suspect was a previous witness or a person having knowledge of the suspect, or not, other than the witness's statement.
If there are additional circumstances, such as the time limit to make a false statement, a witness's statement is considerably high in its probative value, unless there is any motive or reason to make a false statement.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9390 Decided September 30, 2010, etc.). B.
Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court in light of the legal doctrine as seen earlier, only one photograph of the Defendant from the investigative agency as a suspect’s photograph.