E Purchase of curios corresponding to the amount of money wired as a request for curios is known to the victim, and thereafter, the victim knew that he/she wrongfully remitted the amount, but the return was delayed due to difficulties in realizing the said curios, and there was no intention to refuse to return the said amount.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the intention of unlawful acquisition, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In determining the credibility of a victim’s statement, etc. supporting the facts charged, the credibility of a witness’s statement should be assessed on the sole basis of the following: (a) whether the content of the statement itself conforms to the logical inconsistency or empirical rule; (b) whether the statement conforms to the witness’s appearance or attitude; and (c) the statement that is going to an open court after being sworn before a judge; and (d) the appearance or appearance of a witness who is going to make a statement in the witness examination protocol, such as the pencing of the statement, which is difficult to record, by directly observing various circumstances that make it difficult to record (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 209; 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012; and (b) whether the statement conforms to the witness’s statement in the major part, the credibility of a witness’s statement should not be denied without permission on the ground that it is somewhat inconsistent with the witness’s statement in other matters (see Supreme Court Decision 201207Do167.