A. The judgment of the court below which convicted the defendants as to the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry although they did not have obtained a construction license from the defendant Eul, the defendants Gap violated the Framework Act on the Construction Industry. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

2) Defamation (Defendant A) merely referred to as “M” and did not specify the victim. In light of the overall content and purport of the appeal written by the Defendant, Defendant A intentionally committed defamation against the Defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The punishment of the lower court (the Defendants’ respective fines of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) When the first instance court, which violated the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, proceeded with the witness examination procedure, and then determine the credibility of the statement, the credibility of the statement should be assessed by taking into account all the circumstances that make it difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, including whether the content of the statement itself conforms to the rationality, logic, inconsistency, or rule of experience, or conforms to evidence or a third party’s statement after being sworn in the presence of a judge, such as the appearance or attitude of a witness who is engaged in the statement in the open court after being sworn, and the penance of the statement.

On the other hand, the appellate court's determination of credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance court under the current Criminal Procedure Act is based on the records including the witness examination protocol in principle. Thus, in determining credibility of the statement, there is an essential limitation that the appearance and attitude of the witness at the time of the statement that can be called one of the most important elements in determining credibility of the statement can not be reflected in the evaluation of credibility.

Considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluation of credibility, the first instance court’s contents and the first instance court’s examination of evidence are legitimate.