There is an indecent act committed by the injured person in the subway train.

Even in the process of returning, there is a possibility of misunderstanding the criminal defendant who was at uniform similar to the actual criminal in the process of returning.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged based on the statement of the victim without credibility.

2. In light of the difference between the original court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of the testimony adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, the lower court’s judgment was clearly erroneous in its determination on the credibility of the testimony made by the witness in light of the content of the original judgment and the evidence duly examined by the lower court.

If there are extenuating circumstances to see the judgment of the court below on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the court below, or in full view of the results of the examination of evidence and the results of additional examination conducted until the closing of oral pleadings, it is not remarkably unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the court below, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the judgment of the court below on the ground that the judgment of the court below on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the court below is different from the judgment of the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012; 2008Do4449, Jul. 29, 200; 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). The defendant asserted in the court below that, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, the facts that the defendant used subway at the time of appeal, but did not have committed an indecent act against the victim.