A. The Defendant was able to obtain a loan certificate from JN (K) on the beginning because he did not provide the victim and K with necessary documents, such as a written consent to provide security.

Therefore, there was a deception or intentional fraud against the defendant.

As it is impossible to establish a crime of fraud.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the spirit of the substantial direct trial principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous in its determination as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance trial.

Except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court by taking account of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of pleadings, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do2551, Apr. 15, 2016). The Defendant asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part at the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s allegation as to all the facts or circumstances found by the evidence employed by the evidence in detail.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in a thorough comparison with the records, the lower court’s finding of facts and judgment are justifiable.