beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In full view of the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of similarity in the investigative agency and the court of first instance was not a clear memory, but a mistake, and the victim's statement about the crime was not consistent, and the victim's statement about the crime was not made, and the victim's statement is likely to be contaminated by the victim's mother in light of the victim's age or the situation before and after the case, there is no fact that the defendant committed the act of similarity other than the fact that the defendant used the victim's sexual organ as soon as he
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (five years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts 1) Determination of the credibility of a confession should be made based on the following: (a) whether the contents of the confession themselves have objectively rationality, the motive or reason behind the confession, what is the motive or reason for the confession, and what is the circumstance leading to the confessions do not conflict with or contradictory to the confessions among circumstantial evidence other than the confessions; and (b) whether there is a situation where there is a reasonable doubt in the grounds prescribed in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act or in the motive or process of the confessions.
(B) The probative value of evidence is left to the discretion of a judge on July 22, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010). Although it is left to the discretion of a judge, the said decision should conform to logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be convicted in a criminal trial should not be reasonable doubt. However, it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and rejection by causing a suspicion that there is no reasonable ground to believe that there is probative value exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.
Statements made by victims, etc. are consistent with important parts of their statements.