A. The Defendant, among the items written in the facts charged, did not commit a theft of the brushes.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the original court and the appellate court’s method of assessing the credibility of a witness’s statement in light of the contents of the original judgment and the evidence duly examined in the original judgment, the lower court’s judgment was clearly erroneous in determining the credibility of the witness’s statement in light of the contents of the original judgment and the evidence duly examined in the original judgment.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the lower court’s judgment as to the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the lower court is significantly unfair, or comprehensively considering the results of the examination of evidence at the lower court and the results of the additional examination conducted until the closing of oral argument at the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the lower court’s judgment on the sole ground that the lower court’s judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the lower court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do494, Nov. 24, 2006; 201Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). Although the Defendant asserted to the same effect, the lower court asserted to the same effect, the lower court did not have credibility in the testimony of E

Accordingly, the defendant's assertion was rejected.

Examining the facts and judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the court below's determination that found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts affecting the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. The fact that the defendant can have the same criminal history as the defendant's judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, that there is no agreement with the victim or no recovery from damage.