In addition, the defendant prepared a labor contract and delivered it to E.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted each of the charges of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of 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 the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly unreasonable considering the results of the first instance examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted until the closing of arguments in the appellate court, except in exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is remarkably unfair, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the grounds that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is different from the judgment made by the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun.

Judgment

In light of the above legal principles, the court below asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case in the court below, and the court below, as well as the reasonableness, logical, contradictory or empirical rule of the statement itself, inconsistency with the defendant's statement contents, and witness form, attitude, and statement made in public court after oathing the witness D and E in the presence of a judge.