The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the reasons for appeal is that the victim was investigated by the Busan Regional Labor Office, along with the defendant, while he was under the investigation by the Busan Regional Labor Office, and his face was pushed off to the defendant.

Defendant is only a fact that the above victim’s behavior leads to the face at the level of defense in a timely manner.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

Judgment

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility in accordance with the spirit of substantial direct deliberation adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, the first instance court’s decision and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court was clearly erroneous in the first instance court’s decision on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance trial in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance trial.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial and the result of further examination of evidence conducted by the court of first instance until the closing of pleadings, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court's judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). (b) In light of the aforementioned legal principles of specific determination, the lower court asserted that the instant case was the same as the grounds for appeal in question, and the Defendant followed the examination procedure for the witness of the victim B after going through the examination of the witness of the victim of the first instance, not only is it reasonable, logical, contradictory, or empirical rule, inconsistency with the contents and contents of the Defendant's statement, but also the appearance of the witness's statement made in the open court after being sworn by the judge.