A. Of the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, with regard to the sales of each Metecopon (hereinafter “locopon”) on the lower order of July 2012 and the first order of September 2012, the Defendant merely delivered Mecopon to K in June 2012, and the Defendant did not sell Mecopon two times to K as indicated in this part of the facts charged, the lower court convicted him of this part of the facts charged on the basis of the witness’s legal statement of the lower court without credibility. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant sentencing case, the lower court’s punishment (the penalty of KRW 1.2 months in imprisonment and KRW 3.2 million in imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in accordance with the spirit of substantial direct cross-examination, if there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court clearly erred in its determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance in light of the content of the first instance court’s judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or if there are exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is remarkably unfair in full view of the results of the first instance’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted until the time of closing of argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance on the ground that the first instance court differs from the appellate court’s determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 2009).