Text
Defendant
All of the appeal filed by A and the appeal filed by the Prosecutor against Defendant B shall be dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (Definite misunderstanding of facts and unreasonable sentencing) 1) misunderstanding of facts does not have any act of assaulting or threatening the victim C in relation to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape) and the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Coercive Act, etc.). There is no fact of sexual intercourse with the victim C, and there is no fact of compelling the victim C to engage in sexual traffic. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of both the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence (two years and six months of imprisonment, etc.) sentenced by the lower
B. The public prosecutor (unfair sentencing on Defendant B) sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution, etc.) is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.
2. Determination
A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts also asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court rejected Defendant A’s assertion in detail by providing a detailed statement of the determination on the assertion of Defendant A and the defense counsel under the title “Judgment on the argument of Defendant A and the defense counsel (related to 2018 Gohap50).”
The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and this court, i.e., the victim C’s investigative agency and court of the court below’s major contents are consistent, there is no unreasonable or contradictory part in light of the empirical rule, and there is no motive or reason to make a false statement unfavorable to the defendant; and ② in a case where the victim’s statement is actually the only evidence to acknowledge the facts charged, the victim’s statement cannot be believed to be contradictory in light of the empirical rule and in itself, because it is not direct evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.