The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (1) In fact, the Defendant did not agree to purchase the vehicle from the victim C on the condition that the Defendant takes over the installment payment of 8.9 million won borne by the victim C, and to pay the victim C the purchase price of 8.9 million won.
(2) The Defendant, upon receiving a request from the victim N to sell a vehicle, sold the vehicle in KRW 5.5 million, and paid the purchase price to the victim N, and did not agree to pay the installment on behalf of the victim N.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.
A. (1) In light of the spirit of substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous.
Unless there are extenuating circumstances to view that maintaining the first instance court's judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is significantly unfair, in full view of the results of the first instance court's examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted until the closing of the appellate court's pleading, the appellate court shall respect the judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). (2) The court below found the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance after completing direct investigation of evidence, such as the process of examining the witness of the first instance court with respect to C, N, Q, etc., and found the defendant guilty of the fraud of the victim C and N among the facts charged of this case. The lower court's determination on the credibility of the above statement was clearly erroneous, or it seems significantly unfair to maintain the lower court's judgment on the credibility of the statement as it is.
B. The sentencing unfair records and arguments of this case are shown.