The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In principle, where the appellate court recognizes that the grounds for appeal exist, it shall be able to determine the credibility of the testimony without re-examination of the witness examined by the first instance court and only the entry in the protocol alone. However, in light of the principle of court-oriented trial and the principle of direct examination, the first instance court’s decision on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance witness 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 significantly unreasonable to maintain the first instance court’s decision on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance witness in light of the results of the first instance examination and the results of further examination of evidence conducted by the first instance court until the closing of arguments in the appellate court, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission on the ground that the first instance court’s decision on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance witness is different from the judgment of the appellate court.

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 91Do1672, Oct. 22, 1991; 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). 2. The record reveals that the Defendant, around February 25, 2014, she dries alcohol in a sacr or male water surface and dumping alcohol into the victim’s clothes in a state of failing to resist due to sleep and diving, and she dump the sexual organ, she safs the Defendant.