2. Determination:

A. The lower court determined that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant engaged in door-to-door sales business in collusion with E on the grounds that: (a) the Defendant conspireds with E on the facts charged of the instant case, on the grounds that: (b) the Defendant stated that E would distribute profits between the Defendant and the Defendant or would not sell goods in any way; (c) the Defendant’s statement at the investigative agency cannot be ruled out to be the possibility that E would reverse the statement in the court; and (d) the Defendant could not have made false statements in order to lower the degree of his participation in the commission of the crime; (c) the Defendant’s notification of selling price to E would defend the selling price; and (d) the Defendant was engaged in door-to-door sales business with independent sales method even before the Defendant sells goods supplied.

B. In light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance is clearly erroneous, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance cannot be reversed without permission, except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unreasonable to maintain the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court by the time of closing argument in the appellate court, based on the evidence examination conducted by the first instance court and the first instance court