2. The Defendant asserted that he did not force the victim to commit an indecent act, and denied the facts charged in this case. Accordingly, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail on the “reason for the crime of oil” in Section 3 of the lower judgment’s written judgment. In light of the records and comparison of the lower judgment, it is difficult to deem that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, and further, there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the spirit of substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act, or that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous, taking into account the results of the first instance’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of the closing of arguments, the lower court shall respect the judgment on the credibility of the statement made

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006) comprehensively admitted the legal principles and, in particular, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original court and the trial court, i.e., the following circumstances: ① in the case of witness G of the original court, a witness is deemed to have been stated in a relatively objective point of view; and the record of the victim is sexually committed by an investigative agency and the defendant in