A. 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 content of the first instance court’s 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 evidence examination conducted by the first instance court and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, except in exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is considerably unreasonable in full view of the evidence examination and the additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument of the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court’s judgment on the grounds that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).

In the instant case where it is difficult to view that maintaining the judgment of the first instance court is considerably unfair even if the result of an additional examination of evidence was conducted until the closing of argument in the trial, the first instance court's decision that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case based on such evidence is acceptable, and there is no illegality of misunderstanding of facts that affected the judgment, and thus, the Defendant's assertion of this issue is argued