A. In regard to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principle (hereinafter “clopon”), the Defendant did not sell a copon to B as stated in the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In determining the credibility of a statement made by a victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the relevant court shall not reject the statement without permission, unless there are any other reliable materials that can reasonably be objectively deemed as having been objectively consistent and consistent with the facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). Moreover, where the statement made by the witness is consistent with the aforementioned part of the statement, the credibility of the statement should not be denied solely on the grounds that the witness’s appearance, attitude, and appearance, and appearance, appearance, and appearance, etc. of the witness who is participating in the statement made in the open court after being sworn before the judge, and the witness’s statement made in the witness protocol, including the victim, are not consistent with the facts charged.

(2) In full view of the following facts and circumstances admitted by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s specific judgment and the lower court’s judgment acknowledged as follows. (2) In full view of the following facts and circumstances, the lower court’s partial statement that conforms to the facts charged in the instant case is reliable, and in full view of the statements and remaining evidence in the instant case, the Defendant’s sales of phiphonephones as indicated in the facts charged can be recognized.