2. Considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of the testimony, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the testimony made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court.

Except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court as it is, in light of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the additional examination of evidence conducted until the closing of the appellate trial, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court's judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006, etc.). The Defendant also asserted the same effect as the grounds for appeal even in the lower court. The lower court rejected the Defendant's assertion that the Defendant directly examined the victim C and F, G, and E, and examined the witness as a witness, and examined the witness's attitude, attitude, consistency, clarity, specification, body nature, etc., and rejected the Defendant's assertion that the witness's statement was credibility.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified in finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the witness's statement, written statement, recording, etc. is clearly false or that there is a trace of trying to manipulate evidence.