A. In the facts charged, the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, did not deceiving the victim, and since the person who received money from the victim or borrowed money from the victim B is not the Defendant, the lower court recognized the Defendant as a crime of fraud.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court, the first instance court clearly erred in its determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court, in accordance with the spirit of the substantial direct trial principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance trial and the result of additional examination of evidence by the time the appellate trial is final and conclusive, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s judgment (Supreme Court Decision 201Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). Although the Defendant asserted to the same purport at the lower court, the lower court may believe that the victim’s legal statement made by the lower court, which was issued KRW 30 million to the Defendant after hearing the statements as stated in the facts charged, could be trusted.

The decision was determined.

In other words, the following circumstances, which are the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, were the same as the facts charged from the defendant from the investigative agency to the court below.