2. In light of the content of the judgment of the first instance and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in the determination.

In light of the special circumstances or the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional examination conducted until the closing of oral argument, maintaining the first instance court’s decision as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is not significantly unfair (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do494, Nov. 24, 2006). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the victim made a statement corresponding to the facts in this case from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and the victim’s statement was somewhat inconsistent with or unsatisfying with the detailed parts. However, considering that the victim’s memory in light of the empirical rule is general and the victim’s old age is not the victim’s right of appearance, the victim’s assertion that the victim’s statement made in this case’s statement and the second instance court’s statement was not the victim’s right of appearance, and the victim’s statement was not the victim’s remaining 6.36.

3. According to the conclusion, the defendant-appellant.