Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Appellate reversal of a first-instance credibility finding
Supreme Court, Aug. 11, 2022, 2022Do6743 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 사기·민사집행법위반·강제집행면탈
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May an appellate court re-evaluate and reverse a first-instance finding of fact as a court of review where no new objective reason affecting the formation of its own conviction has emerged during the trial, and what degree of evidential force must evidence have before a charge may be found guilty in a criminal case?
Holding
In principle it may not. An appellate court, which is based on a retrial of the first instance but also carries a substantial element of post-judgment review, may reverse a first-instance finding of fact only where there are reasonable circumstances making it manifestly unjust to leave that finding in place, and where it rejects the credibility of a witness's testimony supporting the charge, only where there appear sufficient and convincing circumstances that make the finding impossible to accept. A conviction must rest on evidence carrying enough force to remove rational doubt, and if the prosecution has not proved the charge enough to create that conviction of its truth, the matter must be resolved in the defendant's favour.
Points at issue, verbatim
항소심이 심리과정에서 심증 형성에 영향을 미칠 만한 객관적 사유가 새로 드러난 것이 없는데도 제1심의 사실인정에 관한 판단을 재평가하여 사후심적으로 판단하여 뒤집을 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극) / 항소심이 공소사실을 뒷받침하는 증인 진술의 신빙성을 배척한 제1심 판단을 뒤집을 수 있는 경우
Unofficial English translation
Whether, where no objective circumstance capable of affecting the formation of a conviction has newly emerged in the course of the appellate proceedings, the appellate court may re-evaluate the court of first instance's findings of fact and reverse them by rendering judgment as a court of review (negative in principle) / Instances in which the appellate court may reverse the court of first instance's judgment that rejected the credibility of the witness statements supporting the facts charged
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 유죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 인천지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this case as to that part is remanded to the Incheon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
제1심의 증거가치 판단이 명백히 잘못되었다거나 사실인정에 이르는 논증이 논리와 경험의 법칙에 어긋나는 등 그 판단을 그대로 유지하는 것이 현저히 부당하다고 볼 만한 합리적인 사정이 있어야 하고
Unofficial English translation
there must be a reasonable circumstance making it manifestly unfair to maintain that judgment as it stands, such as where the court of first instance's evaluation of the value of the evidence is clearly erroneous or where the reasoning leading to the findings of fact contravenes the laws of logic and experience, and
Factors
- 심증 형성에 영향을 미칠 만한 객관적 사유가 새로 드러난 것이 없는데도
- 제1심의 사실인정에 관한 판단을 재평가하여 사후심적으로 판단하여 뒤집을 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극)
- 공소사실을 뒷받침하는 증인 진술의 신빙성을 배척한 제1심 판단을 뒤집을 수 있는 경우
- 형사재판에서 공소사실을 유죄로 인정하기 위한 증거의 증명력 정도
Unofficial English translation
• Where no objective circumstance capable of affecting the formation of a conviction has newly emerged
• Whether the appellate court may re-evaluate the court of first instance's findings of fact and reverse them by rendering judgment as a court of review (negative in principle)
• Instances in which the appellate court may reverse the court of first instance's judgment that rejected the credibility of the witness statements supporting the facts charged
• The degree of probative value of evidence required to find the facts charged guilty in a criminal trial
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2010. 3. 25. 선고 2009도14065 판결 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14065 decided March 25, 2010.
Decisions referred to
[1][2] 대법원 2022. 5. 26. 선고 2017도11582 판결(공2022하, 1309) / [1] 대법원 1996. 12. 6. 선고 96도2461 판결(공1997상, 279), 대법원 2010. 3. 25. 선고 2009도14065 판결(공2010상, 844), 대법원 2017. 3. 22. 선고 2016도18031 판결(공2017상, 919) / [2] 대법원 2014. 2. 13. 선고 2011도15767 판결(공2014상, 650)
Burden of proof
The prosecution Stated in the decision
검사가 이러한 확신을 가지게 할 만큼 충분히 증명하지 못한 경우에는 설령 유죄의 의심이 든다고 하더라도 피고인의 이익으로 판단해야 한다
Unofficial English translation
if the prosecutor has not proved the matter sufficiently to induce such conviction, then even if a doubt as to guilt arises, the matter must be decided in favor of the defendant
Open question and revisit condition
If on remand the victim's testimony remains the only direct evidence and no further corroboration appears, what would make it capable of removing all rational doubt?
The remand judgment of the Incheon District Court on the fraud count will show how the credibility of the victim's testimony is assessed after further evidence-taking. A later Supreme Court decision revising the standard for appellate review, or any change in the decisions this Court cited as its basis, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary states the reversal standards in the abstract (요건 제시), while the independent reading applies them to the facts of this case (사안 적용) by noting the missing re-examination of the victim.
항소심이 공소사실을 뒷받침하는 증인 진술의 신빙성을 배척한 제1심 판단을 뒤집을 수 있는 경우Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Incheon District Court, hearing the appeal in its judgment of 17 May 2022 (2021No4950), overturned the first-instance acquittal on the fraud count and convicted the defendant. It held that the defendant, moved only by a vague hope of reselling the eight screen-riding simulators to a new screen-riding venue, deceived the victim into handing them over although he had neither the intention nor the means to pay the price of KRW 16,000,000 within six months, and that the sale having been concluded at the victim's own active request made no difference. In adopting the victim's testimony it placed weight on the very low price of KRW 2,000,000 per unit relative to the purchase price and on the victim's having delivered the machines before receiving payment.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the low price was not unusual given the time gap and the second-hand market price the victim had checked, and matched the clearance of equipment on closing down the victim's venue; the advance delivery came from the victim's own need to end the lease quickly and cut unnecessary costs, so neither was a ground for guilt. The court below had taken no further evidence, closed argument at the first hearing and reversed the first-instance rejection of the victim's credibility on those points alone, which misapprehended the law on appellate trial and judgment and failed to hold the hearing required, thereby affecting the judgment. Since the fraud count stood in substantive concurrence with the parts of the counts of evading compulsory execution and breach of the Civil Execution Act that had been found guilty (excluding the part acquitted in the reasons), and a single sentence was pronounced for them, the whole conviction was reversed and the case sent back to the Incheon District Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- An appeal in which an objective reason affecting the formation of the court's conviction has newly emerged during the trial, so that the restraint on review does not apply.
- A first-instance judgment that did not reject the credibility of the testimony said to be the only direct evidence on the point in issue.
- A court of review that, after further evidence-taking such as questioning the witness again so as not to impair the defence, found circumstances making it manifestly unjust to leave the first-instance finding in place.
Record verification notes
Ask first what evidence was submitted after the first instance and whether the court of review examined it before closing argument, since the Court relied on the absence of any new evidence and on a single hearing. Then test each circumstance the appellate court used against the first-instance reasons for rejecting credibility, and confirm whether the fraud count is in substantive concurrence with other guilty counts, because one conviction cannot be reversed alone in that situation.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 항소심이 심리과정에서 심증 형성에 영향을 미칠 만한 객관적 사유가 새로 드러난 것이 없는데도 제1심의 사실인정에 관한 판단을 재평가하여 사후심적으로 판단하여 뒤집을 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극) / 항소심이 공소사실을 뒷받침하는 증인 진술의 신빙성을 배척한 제1심 판단을 뒤집을 수 있는 경우 [2] 형사재판에서 공소사실을 유죄로 인정하기 위한 증거의 증명력 정도
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, where no objective circumstance capable of affecting the formation of a conviction has newly emerged in the course of the appellate proceedings, the appellate court may re-evaluate the court of first instance's findings of fact and reverse them by rendering judgment as a court of review (negative in principle) / Instances in which the appellate court may reverse the court of first instance's judgment that rejected the credibility of the witness statements supporting the facts charged [2] The degree of probative value of evidence required to find the facts charged guilty in a criminal trial
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결 중 유죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 인천지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this case as to that part is remanded to the Incheon District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형사소송법 제308조, 제364조 [2] 형사소송법 제307조, 제308조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger