2. The recognition of criminal facts in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that it would lead to such conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, the determination should be made in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do774, Nov. 29, 2007; 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 2011). Furthermore, considering the difference between the method of evaluation of credibility between the first instance court and the appellate court’s statement in light of the substance of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, the determination of credibility of the witness’s statement made by the first instance court should be made clearly in light of the substance of the first instance judgment and the evidence examination conducted by the first instance court.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see, or in full view of the results of the examination of evidence conducted by the first instance court and the results of the additional examination of evidence conducted until the closing of pleadings, maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is deemed significantly unfair, the appellate court shall respect the first instance judgment and shall not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the acknowledgement of the facts of the first instance judgment without any such exceptional circumstance (Supreme Court Decision 2006 June 6, 2012).