2. In a judgment in a criminal trial, criminal facts must be found based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to fully reach the extent that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

(1) The lower court determined that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance is clearly erroneous in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance is clearly unreasonable in light of the following exceptional circumstances: (a) the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is respected in the first instance court as of April 28, 201; and (b) the first instance court’s determination on the facts established by the first instance court as an element of the first instance-oriented trial; and (c) the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance is respected without any exceptional circumstance; and (d) the first instance court’s determination on the facts established by the first instance court without any exception; and (e) the first instance court’s determination on the facts established by the first instance court without any permission from the first instance court.