Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the spirit of substantial direct deliberation under the Criminal Procedure Act adopted by our criminal litigation law, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court's judgment, but it was clearly erroneous in the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court.

In light of the special circumstances or the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of oral argument, maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is not deemed significantly unfair (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do494, Nov. 24, 2006; 2008Do7462, Jan. 30, 2009). The degree of the formation of a documentary evidence to be found guilty in a criminal trial should be such that there is no reasonable doubt. However, it is not required to exclude any possible doubt, and it is not permissible to dismiss the evidence that has probative value without any reasonable grounds to suspect the credibility of the statement by the witness of the first instance trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006; 2008Do7462, Jan. 30, 2009).