Under such circumstances, until December 31, 2013, the Defendant and C drafted a promissory note fair certificate that the Defendant would pay up to March 30, 2014, a total of KRW 330 million lent by C to the Defendant.

However, as the defendant did not change his promise until April 30, 2014, C received money from the defendant under the name of the pension business and filed a complaint for fraud.

In other words, C’s lending of KRW 50 million on December 18, 2012, and KRW 50 million on December 19, 192, which was delivered by C to the Defendant, from C in order to conduct bond business, is not received money as a partner of pension business.

2. Determination

A. In light of the spirit of substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as one of the elements of the trial-oriented principle, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance court was clearly erroneous in determining the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court.

Unless there exist special circumstances to view that maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness at the first instance trial is remarkably unfair, the appellate court shall not arbitrarily reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness at the first instance trial is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). (b) The lower court’s determination comprehensively takes account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.