beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The statement of D and the investigation report prepared by D are contradictory or inconsistent with the facts, and it is difficult for C to grant credibility to D because it is difficult for C to make a statement, and C expressed to D several stories on July 1, 2016 only a question that is not a talking, but a statement made by the Defendant is not false.
B. In light of C’s degree of statement attitude, etc., D is likely to erroneously associated with C’s oral statement; even if C clearly expresses, it is likely that the Defendant was unable to properly hear C’s oral statement or is able to associate with his/her oral statement; thus, the Defendant’s testimony does not go against memory, nor does he/she have the intention of perjury.
(c)
The punishment of the court below (7 million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In the first instance trial, the Defendant asserted as the grounds for appeal and the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the lower court acknowledged the fact that: (a) the Defendant asserted as the same as the grounds for appeal; (b) the police officer who investigated the instant case whether B committed an indecent act; (c) there was a very important part of the police officer who was investigating the instant case; and (d) was likely to mislead or memory the case; and (c) was able to prepare an investigation report on the same day; (d) C made a statement at the hospital to the police station that made a statement at the police station or made a request for the preparation of a written statement; and (e) C made a statement to the effect that “B was sent from E” in light of the credibility statement of the D, and the Defendant made the above statement to the effect that “B was sent from E.”
However, in light of the investigation process of the case B, the date of conversation in the dental room and the time interval between the date of testimony in the court and the time of testimony in the court, it seems that the defendant was forgotten or misunderstanding the conversation between D and C at the time of testimony in the court.