A. Although the Defendant had prepared a lease contract under B (hereinafter “instant contract No. 2”) with a deposit in the name of KRW 50,000,000, the Defendant did not participate in the preparation of a lease contract with a deposit in KRW 450,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”) as stated in the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In determining the credibility of a statement made by a victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court of relevant legal principles shall assess the credibility of the statement, and shall not reject the statement without any additional reliable data that can be objectively deemed objectively acceptable if the statement made by the witness, including the victim, etc. conforms to the rationality, logic, morality, or rule of experience, or conforms to the witness evidence or third party’s statement in the presence of a judge. Moreover, where the statement made by the witness is consistent with the main part of the statement, the credibility of the statement should not be denied solely on the ground that the statement made by the witness, including the victim, is inconsistent with the facts charged, by directly observing various circumstances that are difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, such as the appearance or attitude of the witness, and the penation of the statement made by the witness in the open court after being sworn at the presence of a judge.

(2) In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant is deemed to have committed the following acts. (3) In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the basis of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court.