2. The first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous when it was intended to re-examine the first instance court’s judgment and subsequently determine it ex post facto, although there was no objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the process of the trial.

There is a reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court should not be reversed without permission (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal even in the lower court. The lower court affirmed the lower court’s judgment in light of the following: (a) in the summary of the evidence, the Defendant asserted that the “Sttp PC was in the office of Pyeongtaek-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, No. 5 p.m. on the same day; (b) it was confirmed that there was only F and Defendant, the head of the above office, from 2 p.m. to 2 p., from the above office; and (c) it appears that the Defendant had lawfully adopted the evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s motive to steal goods between the victim and the victim.”

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.