A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles have been singing as victims, etc. at the time recorded in the facts charged, but there is no fact that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim, such as the instant facts charged. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds of the victim’s statement suspected of credibility, and thus, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) Punishment (including a fine of five million won) sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the difference between the method of evaluating credibility of a witness’s statement made by the first instance court and the appellate court based on the spirit of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, if there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court clearly erred in the determination on the credibility of a witness’s statement made by the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or if there are exceptional circumstances to deem that maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a witness’s statement made by the first instance court is considerably unfair in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court’s determination on the grounds that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a witness’s statement made by the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2).