The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding) G’s statement in the lower court is not clear and consistent, and there is no illegality in finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including F’s statement in the lower court. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In a criminal trial, the determination of conviction should be based on evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless such proof is given, the conviction cannot be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

In addition, according to the purport of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act, in order for the appellate court to reverse the first instance court’s decision denying the credibility of the statement by a witness of the first instance, it should be deemed that, in principle, the first instance court’s decision was clearly erroneous or that the first instance court’s decision is clearly erroneous or that the first instance court’s decision is remarkably unfair when comprehensively considering the results of the first

In particular, in the case of evidence supporting the facts charged, even though the first instance court, which directly observed the appearance and attitude of the witness who directly observe the witness's statement while proceeding the witness examination procedure, judged that the credibility of the witness's statement cannot be acknowledged, if the appellate court intends to determine that the credibility of the witness's statement can be acknowledged by following it, the first instance court's ruling rejecting the credibility of the witness's statement should be sufficient and acceptable.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006; 2012Do2409, Jan. 31, 2013). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, it is reasonable to view the foregoing.