Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant by misunderstanding the facts.

2. In light of the content of the judgment of the first instance and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in the determination.

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 as it is, upon considering the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of the appellate trial, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 2009). The Defendant asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal even in the lower court. The lower court, upon directly observing the witness F by directly observing the witness appearance or attitude of the witness, and the lower court has credibility in the witness’s statement in light of the logical inconsistency of the content itself or the empirical rule, etc.

In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged is just, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition, since the defendant's appeal is without merit.