A. Although there was a misunderstanding of facts (as to the facts of the 2014 senior order 718, 2015 senior order 518, senior order 518), the Defendant received money from the victim E and H, there was no deception of the said victims.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment and two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the content of the first instance judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance judgment as to the credibility of the statement made by the first instance witness was clearly erroneous.

In light of the following circumstances or the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted by the court of first instance until the closing of oral proceedings, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance cannot be reversed without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do494, Nov. 24, 2006). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, (i) the victim E and H made a statement corresponding to the facts of this case from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the first instance; (ii) the victim’s statement made by the victim E is clearly consistent and inconsistent; and (iii) the victim’s statement made from the police officer’s statement made from P to the court of the first instance (No. 126 to 131 of the evidence record No. 718, Dec. 14, 2006; and (iv) the victim’s statement made from the police officer’s statement made from the victim’s statement 201514,51.