2. Determination

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 contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or in exceptional cases where maintaining the first instance court’s decision on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is deemed considerably unreasonable considering the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument at the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court’s decision on the grounds that the first instance court’s decision on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s decision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). In light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not have any intention to commit an indecent act against the victim and the victim.

In addition, there are no other extenuating circumstances to deem that the judgment of the court below was erroneous on the credibility of the statement made by the victim and D, and it does not seem that maintaining the judgment of the court below is remarkably unfair.

The defendant's assertion of mistake and hearing is accepted.