The victim, who had previously been a marital relationship, did not pay money to the defendant, or did not pay money to the victim because he was frighten.

2. Determination

A. Considering the difference between the method of evaluating the credibility of the first instance trial and the appellate trial based on the spirit of substantial direct deliberation, the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous in its determination on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance court in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance trial.

In light of the following circumstances or the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted by the court of first instance until the closing of pleadings, the appellate court shall respect the first instance judgment as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 2009; 2017Do7871, Mar. 29, 2018). (b) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the court below and duly examined by the court below, namely, ① the victim’s phone from the investigative agency to the court of first instance, and consistently from the court of first instance to the court of first instance, the defendant sent the victim the victim’s phone to the hospital where the victim would have been able to wear a plaque, and the victim would have been able to express his/her speech without the victim’s own wish to do so.

The court below stated the victim's statement (Evidence 63, 189, 193, 65 pages of the trial record), and the court below held that the victim's statement can be trusted after directly summoned the victim as witness and questioning the victim as witness.

In the judgment of the court below, the defendant was convicted of the facts charged in this case.