The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the victim D made a concrete and consistent statement from the investigative agency to the court below to the court below; and (b) K dialogueed the Defendant and the victim with respect to “non-funds.”

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground of the statement of the victim F, G, etc. in which the defendant's interests coincide with the other party's statement.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the credibility of the victim’s statement 1) In light of the spirit of substantial direct trial principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act as one of the elements of trial-oriented principle, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance court was clearly erroneous.

Unless there exist special circumstances to view that maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness at the first instance court is remarkably unfair, the appellate court may not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness at the first instance court is different from that of the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). In cases of evidence supporting the facts charged, even though the first instance court, who directly observed the witness’s appearance and attitude while proceeding for the examination of witness, judged that the credibility of the statement made by a witness at the first instance court cannot be acknowledged, the appellate court may reverse it and then recognize the credibility of the statement.

In order to determine the credibility of the statement, the first deliberation decision rejecting the credibility of the statement should be a case where sufficient and understandable circumstances arise (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). 2) The lower court is consistent with the facts charged.