2. Determination

A. In light of the spirit of substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by our criminal litigation law, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial was clearly erroneous.

Unless there exist special circumstances to view that maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance trial is significantly unfair, or comprehensively considering the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of pleadings, the appellate court shall respect the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006, etc.). The written diagnosis submitted by the victim of the crime of injury is that the doctor generally identified the cause of injury based on the victim’s statement and stated the part and degree of injury mobilized and observed by using medical expertise and determined by the doctor, and it is insufficient to directly prove the fact that the injury as described therein was caused by the criminal act. However, if the date and time when the written diagnosis of injury was prepared is close to the time when the injury was caused, and there is no reason to suspect the credibility of the statement made by the victim from the victim to the third party or the victim’s cause of the injury.