The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case without any objective evidence by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles, even though the victim's statement was not reliable, by failing to memory the situation at the time of the court below or destroying the statement to the investigation agency on the part of an indecent act, etc.

2. In determining the credibility of a statement after the first instance court initially proceeded with the witness examination procedure, not only is it consistent with the rationality, logic, inconsistency, or rule of experience of the content of the statement itself, but also is consistent with the witness evidence or third party’s statement in the witness examination protocol, such as the appearance, attitude, and penology of the witness who is going to the witness statement in the open court after being sworn at the presence of a judge, but also the witness statement in the witness examination protocol, such as the appearance, attitude, and penology of the statement, should be considered to assess the credibility of the statement by directly observing various circumstances that are difficult to record.

On the other hand, the appellate court's determination of credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance court under the current Criminal Procedure Act is based on the records including the witness examination protocol in principle. Thus, in determining credibility of the statement, there is an essential limitation that the appearance and attitude of the witness at the time of the statement that can be called 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 credibility in accordance with the spirit of the principle of substantial direct deliberation as seen earlier, the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous in its determination as to the credibility of the statement made by the first instance court witness in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court.

The first instance court held that there are special circumstances or the results of the first review and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted not later than the closing of the appellate trial.