According to the consistent statements made by the victim D investigation agency, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts that the defendant acquitted the defendant on the ground of the victim's statement that he did not reverse a part of the statement while recognizing the fact that the defendant posted a malicious article about the victim and used it to bring money from the victim.

Judgment

The conviction in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, so if there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(2) In light of the purport of substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous in light of the following special circumstances: (a) the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court and the result of additional examination of the evidence made by the court of first instance until the closing of argument in the appellate trial is clearly unreasonable, except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court, and the appellate court should respect the determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994 delivered on November 24, 2006). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment after comparing it with records, the lower court’s rejection of the statement made by D does not seem to have any error in law, and it is remarkably unreasonable to maintain the lower court’s decision that recognized the credibility of the statement made by D in the lower court, which reversed part of the statement made by D in the trial court, is remarkably unreasonable.