A. There is no fact that the Defendant has arranged the trade of philophones between D and E, as stated in this part of the facts charged.

In other words, although D referred to the defendant as philophones, the defendant rejected it, the defendant later denied it, and there was a fact that the defendant knew of D's contact information while making telephone conversations with E, but D did not say that D sought philophones.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of imprisonment and two months of collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the substance of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or, in exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is considerably unreasonable in full view of the first instance court’s results of examination and the results of additional examination of evidence conducted until the closing of argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should respect the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 209; 2017Do7871, Mar. 29, 2018).