A. Although it was true that there was an interview of E at the time and place recorded in the judgment of the defendant in mistake of facts, there was no delivery or sale of a penphone to E.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the crime of delivery and sale of philophones to E is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) With regard to the assertion of mistake of facts, when considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluation of credibility in accordance with the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court’s judgment on the ground that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance is clearly unreasonable in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional examination of evidence conducted by the time of closing argument of the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse without permission on the ground that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).).