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 accordance with the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court’s judgment on the ground that the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous in light of the content of the first instance court’s judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or that the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is clearly unreasonable in full view of the evidence examination results conducted in the first instance court and the result of additional examination by the time the argument of the appellate court is concluded until the closing of arguments (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).

The court below determined that the testimony of H and F, consistent with the facts charged, is reliable and recognized that the defendant deceivings victims in collusion with C and D. In full view of the contents of the judgment below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, there is no special circumstance to deem that the judgment of the court below on the credibility of each of the above statements was clearly erroneous, and it is also recognized that the above judgment of the court below is remarkably unfair.