The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal has no fact of threatening a victim;

2. Determination

A. In determining the credibility of a statement after the first instance court proceeded with the witness examination procedure in the relevant criminal trial procedure, the credibility of the statement should be assessed by considering all the circumstances that are difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, including the appearance or attitude of the witness who is going to make a statement in the open court after being sworn in the presence of a judge, the appearance and attitude of the witness, and the penology of the statement, and the penology of the statement.

On the other hand, the appellate court's determination of credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court under the current Criminal Procedure Act is based on the records including the witness examination protocol in principle, so it has an essential limitation that the appearance and attitude of the witness at the time of the statement that can be considered one of the most important elements in determining credibility of the statement can not be reflected in the evaluation of credibility.

Considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance in accordance with the spirit of the principle of direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court clearly erred in the determination of the credibility of the statement made by the 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, or in exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance is remarkably unfair in full view of the results of the first instance court’s evidence examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time the