2. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly unreasonable in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination by the time of closing arguments, the appellate court should not reverse the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court differs from the appellate court’s determination (Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). The lower court determined that the victim’s statement was inconsistent with the facts charged or that the entire statement was inconsistent with the statement.

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is remarkably unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the court below, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous.