However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, in the absence of the fact that the Defendant moved to K after drinking alcohol to K and sexual intercourse with J, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In light of the content of the judgment of the first instance court and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous.

Unless there exist special circumstances to view that maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is significantly unfair, or comprehensively considering the results of the first instance examination and the results of additional examination conducted until the closing of oral pleadings, the appellate court may not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do494, Nov. 24, 2006; 2007Do2020, May 11, 2007; 2009Do1409, Feb. 25, 2010). (b) The lower court, as to the Defendant’s grounds for appeal and the same purport, is sufficiently consistent with the facts admitted by the Defendant and the witness of this case, and thus, found that the Defendant and the witness of this case were sexual traffic.

The decision was determined.

(c)

In light of the above legal principles, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below is just, and the defendant and the J have engaged in sexual traffic at the court below.