The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the gist of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) that the defendant's prosecutor confession, the prosecutorial confession, the police officer's statement in the original trial, and circumstances where the victim could not have the right to attend the court, etc., the facts charged in the instant case should be found guilty, but the court below erred by mistake of facts against the defendant.

2. When considering the difference between the original court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness in light of the contents of the original judgment and the evidence duly examined in the original judgment, or there are exceptional cases where it is obviously unreasonable to maintain the original judgment as to the credibility of a statement made by the witness in the original judgment in light of the evidence examination and the evidence duly examined in the original court, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the lower court clearly erred in its determination, or where it is obviously unreasonable to maintain the original judgment on the credibility of a statement made by the witness in the original judgment based on the evidence examination and the additional evidence examination conducted until the closing of oral argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the lower court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness only on the ground that the lower court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness is different from the appellate court’s determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).

There should be reasonable grounds to believe that the argument leading to fact-finding is not against logical and empirical rules to maintain the decision as it is, and without such exceptional circumstances, the decision on fact-finding of the first instance court.