(1) On December 11, 2018, the Defendant asserted that “the contents of the instant case cannot be recognized, and no understanding is possible,” and the Defendant’s defense counsel additionally asserted unjust sentencing on June 4, 2019. However, on December 7, 2018, the notice of the receipt of the trial record against the Defendant’s defense counsel was served on the Defendant’s defense counsel on December 14, 2018, respectively. As the Defendant’s assertion of unjust sentencing was filed after the lapse of the period for filing the appellate brief, the judgment on February 2, 2019 is not rendered).

A. In light of the relevant legal principles and the public trial-oriented principle, comprehensively considering the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court’s judgment as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance, unless there are exceptional cases deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14409, Feb. 25, 2010).

In the instant case, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court, taking full account of the following: (a) the victim’s statement on this issue under the summary of evidence is specific and consistent; (b) the Defendant did not appear to have any other reason to publish false information; (c) the Defendant handled the accident with the insurance of the Defendant at the time of the accident; and (d) the employee of the insurance company said that “the other party has been properly engaged in the other party’s vehicle and that he erroneously