2. The lower court determined, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, found facts as indicated in its reasoning (Article 3 and 4), i.e., the following circumstances: (i) where the victim and the Defendant’s statement fully conflict with the existence of certain facts as in the instant case; (ii) where the two parties completely make it impossible to match their respective statements; and (iii) one of the two parties cannot be deemed to make a false statement; (iv) in this case, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s statement is particularly lacking credibility compared to the victim’s statement; (ii) the time when the victim’s statement arrived at the victim’s house on the day of the instant case; (iii) the point where the Defendant’s statement arrived at the victim’s house on the day of the instant case; (iv) the circumstance of specific damage situations, etc. do not go back to the Defendant’s meeting at night; (iii) there is no specific aspect to deem that the victim’s statement was made without direct experience; however, there is no possibility to admit credibility of the victim’s statement solely on the grounds that the victim’s statement was made.