The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal has not inflicted an injury on the victims, as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the original court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a witness’s statement in accordance with the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the principle of court-oriented trial, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the lower court’s judgment on the sole ground that the lower court’s determination on the credibility of a witness’s statement is considerably unreasonable, unless there exist special circumstances to deem that the lower court clearly erred in its determination in light of the content of the original judgment and the evidence duly examined by the court below, or that the evidence was additionally examined by the time of closing argument in the appellate court, in full view of the evidence examination results at the original court and the time of closing argument in the appellate court. However, the appellate court shall not reverse the lower court’s determination on the credibility of a witness’s statement only on the ground that the lower court’s determination on the credibility of the witness’s statement differs from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).

Therefore, the reasonable doubt in this context is not including any question and incompetence, but it is reasonable to determine the probability of facts that are inconsistent with the facts in accordance with logical and empirical rules.