2. Determination

A. In a case where the statements made by witnesses, including the victim, are mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without permission, unless there is any separate evidence to deem the credibility of the statements made by the witness, from an objective perspective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). 2) In light of the difference between the methods of evaluating the credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statements made by the witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statements made by the witness of the first instance is clearly unreasonable, taking into account the results of the first instance court’s examination and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court’s appellate court’s final trial’s final trial and the final trial’s final trial’s determination on the credibility of the statements made by the witness of the first instance court.

The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the above reasons for appeal, and the court below held that the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the circumstances that the victim became aware of the defendant at the court below, and the circumstances that the victim was seated in the above trace, which is the place where the crime was committed, and two names respectively.