Appellate deference to a first-instance credibility finding, and what counts as a threat

1. 01Question

   May an appellate court reverse a first-instance finding that rejected the credibility of witness statements supporting the charge when no new objective reason affecting the formation of its conviction has emerged, and when do words and conduct amount to a threat under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act?

2. 02Holding

   Not in principle. Reversing such a finding requires sufficient and convincing conspicuous circumstances making it plainly unjust to keep it, and for a witness whose demeanour the first instance observed, circumstances making its rejection unacceptable. Threat means notifying another of an evil capable of arousing fear; intent is knowing and accepting that one gives such notice, without needing to intend or desire to carry out the evil. But where the words and conduct are no more than emotional abuse or an outburst of momentary anger and the absence of an intention to harm is objectively plain on the surrounding circumstances, no threatening act or intent may be found, judged on the whole of the circumstances including how the conduct came about and the relationship with the victim.

   Points at issue, verbatim

   항소심이 심리과정에서 심증 형성에 영향을 미칠 만한 객관적 사유가 새로 드러난 것이 없음에도 제1심의 사실인정에 관한 판단을 재평가하여 사후심적으로 판단하여 뒤집을 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극) / 항소심이 공소사실을 뒷받침하는 증인 진술의 신빙성을 배척한 제1심의 판단을 뒤집어 그 진술의 신빙성을 인정할 수 있는 경우

   Unofficial English translation

   Whether the appellate court may, even where no new objective circumstances capable of affecting the formation of the court's conviction have emerged during the appellate proceedings, re-evaluate the court of first instance's findings of fact and reverse them by rendering a judgment in the nature of a review of the record (in principle, negative) / Cases in which the appellate court may reverse the court of first instance's rejection of the credibility of witness statements supporting the facts charged and accept the credibility of such statements

3. 03Disposition

   Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision

   원심판결 중 유죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 대구고등법원에 환송한다.

   Unofficial English translation

   The judgment of the court below is reversed with respect to the guilty portion, and this portion of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

4. 04Form of the test

   Elements stated Stated in the decision

   진술의 신빙성을 배척한 제1심의 판단을 수긍할 수 없는 충분하고도 납득할 만한 현저한 사정이 나타나는 경우이어야 한다

   Unofficial English translation

   There must be sufficient and convincing, manifest circumstances that do not permit agreement with the court of first instance's rejection of the credibility of the statements

5. 05Factors

   • 항소심이 심리과정에서 심증 형성에 영향을 미칠 만한 객관적 사유가 새로 드러난 것이 없음에도
   • 항소심이 공소사실을 뒷받침하는 증인 진술의 신빙성을 배척한 제1심의 판단을 뒤집어 그 진술의 신빙성을 인정할 수 있는 경우
   • 행위자의 언동이 단순한 감정적인 욕설 내지 일시적 분노의 표시에 불과하여 주위사정에 비추어 가해의 의사가 없음이 객관적으로 명백한 경우
   • 협박행위 내지 협박의사가 있었는지 판단하는 기준

   Unofficial English translation

   • Even where no new objective circumstances capable of affecting the formation of the court's conviction have emerged during the appellate proceedings

   • Cases in which the appellate court may reverse the court of first instance's rejection of the credibility of witness statements supporting the facts charged and accept the credibility of such statements

   • Where the actor's words and conduct amount to no more than emotional cursing or an expression of momentary anger and, in light of the surrounding circumstances, it is objectively clear that there is no intent to cause harm

   • The criteria for determining whether an act of intimidation or an intent to intimidate existed

6. 06Relation to precedent

   Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision

   대법원 2023. 1. 12. 선고 2022도14645 판결 참조

   Unofficial English translation

   See Supreme Court Decision 2022Do14645 decided January 12, 2023

   Decisions referred to

   [1] 대법원 2023. 1. 12. 선고 2022도14645 판결(공2023상, 474) / [2] 대법원 2006. 8. 25. 선고 2006도546 판결

7. 07Burden of proof

   Not addressed Not in the decision

8. 08Open question and revisit condition

   When an appellate court has taken no new evidence, how many circumstances already in the first-instance record must combine before they become the conspicuous circumstances that make keeping the first-instance finding plainly unjust?

   The remand judgment of the Daegu High Court will show how the standard for reversing a first-instance credibility finding is applied on a second appeal. A later Supreme Court decision revising that standard, or a change to Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, would require this entry to be read again.

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.