Nevertheless, the judgment of the first instance court that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

2. In the absence of a new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial process, when the court of first instance intends to re-examine the first instance judgment after ex post facto and ex post facto determination, the determination of the value of evidence in the first instance was clearly erroneous.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court shall not be reversed without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the first instance court, and the court of the first instance rejected the Defendant’s assertion while explaining the grounds for the judgment at the bottom of “the summary of evidence”, and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged.

Examining the above judgment of the court of first instance in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance, the above judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.