2. Determination

A. Our Criminal Procedure Act adopts the principle of substantial direct examination that the formation of conviction and innocence against the substance of a criminal case shall be based on a trial-oriented principle, which is that only the evidence directly examined in the presence of a judge may be based on a trial, and the original evidence near the facts to be proved shall be based on a trial, and the use of substitute for the original evidence shall not be permitted in principle. This is because the judge can form a new and accurate conviction through the method of directly investigating original evidence in court, and the defendant may be given a direct opportunity to state his/her opinion, thereby finding substantial truth and realizing a fair trial.

As a presiding court of criminal procedure, the court should be able to realize the above substantial and complete spirit of the principle of direct cross-examination in the court of first instance, which is the principle procedure in which the parties’ allegations and evidence are taken place, focusing on the court in the process of the criminal procedure and the trial process.

In determining credibility of a statement after the first instance court conducted the witness examination procedure, not only is it consistent with the rationality, logic, morality, or rule of experience of the content itself, but also conforms to evidence or third party's statement, but also the appearance and attitude of a witness who is going to a public statement in the open court after being sworn before a judge, and the penance of the statement, etc., which are difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, can be evaluated as credibility by directly observing various circumstances that are difficult to record.

On the other hand, the appellate court's credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court under the current Criminal Procedure Act.