The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The Defendant asserts that the statement by the lower court witness C (hereinafter “Control Police Officers”) who is a traffic control police officer does not conform to the empirical rule, and is in violation of logical rules and should be rejected, but the lower court erred by adopting the statement by the traffic control police officer as evidence and thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. Considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is not deemed to be significantly unfair in light of the first instance court’s results of evidence examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument in the appellate court, the appellate

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7917 Decided January 30, 2009). B.

The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendant’s partial statement of the Defendant, the legal statement of a traffic control police officer, and the statement prepared by a traffic control police officer as evidence; and (b) comprehensively taking account of the following: “The statement of a traffic control police officer is specific and consistent; and (c) the Defendant’s personal phone screen was being carried out; and (d) the fact that the

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the judgment of the court below on the credibility of the statement by the control police officer is maintained.