2. Under the current Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court should consider the characteristics of the structure of the first instance court when determining the legitimacy of the judgment in the appellate court, since the appellate court has the nature of the so-called ex post facto review, which has a substantial part of the ex post facto review elements.

Therefore, even though there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial process, the first instance court's decision was clearly erroneous in the first instance court's decision when it is intended to re-examine the first instance court's decision ex post facto and ex post facto.

There should be reasonable grounds to believe that the argument leading to the fact-finding is not against logical and empirical rules to maintain the decision as it is, and there should be no reasonable grounds to reverse the decision on the fact-finding of the first instance court without such exceptional circumstances.

In principle, it is consistent with the spirit of substantial direct cross-examination, which serves as the basis of trial-oriented principle that the conviction or innocence of a criminal case should be formed by a court hearing, and only the evidence directly examined in the presence of a judge.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven without reasonable doubt that the Defendant intentionally committed perjury, such as what was written in this part of the facts charged, against his/her memory.