A. Unless there exist special circumstances in regard to the assertion of mistake of facts regarding indecent acts by compulsion, an appellate court shall not arbitrarily reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the ground that the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance differs from that of the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). In light of such legal doctrine, the first instance judgment that the victim believed the specific statement made by the first instance court as a witness was clearly erroneous.

In the instant case where it is difficult to view that maintaining the judgment of the first instance court is considerably unfair even if the result of an additional examination of evidence was conducted by the time the arguments in the trial or by the time the arguments in the trial are concluded, the first instance court's decision that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is acceptable based on such evidence, and there is no illegality such as misunderstanding of facts that affected the judgment, and thus, the Defendant'

B. Examining the legal principles of intimidation in light of the records, the first instance court's decision that the defendant's act constitutes a crime of intimidation on the grounds as stated in its reasoning is acceptable, and there is no illegality such as misunderstanding of facts that affected the judgment, and the defendant's above assertion of this issue cannot be accepted.

C. The Defendant did not have any record of punishment for a similar type of crime, and the degree of indecent act and intimidation in the instant case is relatively minor, but such circumstances in the first instance trial also take full account of the following.