2. Determination

A. In the relevant legal doctrine, the probative value of evidence in the relevant criminal procedure belongs to the discretion of the judge (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). In addition, our Criminal Procedure Act adopts the principle of court-oriented trial that the establishment of conviction or innocence against the substance of a criminal case ought to be based on a trial in a court-oriented trial, and adopts a substantial direct trial principle that only the evidence directly examined in the presence of a judge can be based on a trial, and the original evidence which is the most near the facts subject to proof should be based on a trial and the use of the substitute for the original evidence should not be permitted in principle.

This is to enable a judge to form a new and accurate conviction on a case through the method of directly investigating original evidence in the court, while giving the defendant an opportunity to state his opinion on the original evidence, so that a judge can find substantial truth and realize a fair trial.

Therefore, the court presiding over the criminal procedure should be able to fully and fully realize the spirit of free and substantial direct psychologicalism in the first instance trial court, which is the principle procedure in which the parties’ allegations and evidence are taken place, focusing on the court in the process of the criminal procedure and the trial process.

When the first instance court initially proceeded with the witness examination procedure and then decides the credibility of the statement, not only is it consistent with the rationality, logic, inconsistency, or rule of experience of the content itself, but also is consistent with evidence or a third party's statement, but also the appearance, attitude, and statement of the witness being made in the open court after being sworn in the presence of a judge.