The judgment below

The remainder of the compensation order, excluding the application for compensation, shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, did not notify the victim of the same false facts as the facts charged, and even if the fact of resale of standing timber was not an important matter of the contract of this case, the Defendant deceiving the victim by itself.

In addition, even if false information was notified, it does not constitute deception because it was actually engaged in felling standing timber, and there was no intention to commit fraud.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the original court and the appellate court’s method of assessing the credibility of a statement made by a witness in light of the contents of the original judgment and the evidence duly examined in the original judgment, the lower court’s judgment was clearly erroneous in its determination as to the credibility of a statement made by the witness in the lower court in light of the content of the original judgment and the evidence duly examined in the lower court.

If there are extenuating circumstances to see the lower court’s judgment as to the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the lower court, or in full view of the results of the examination of evidence at the lower court and the results of additional examination conducted until the closing of oral pleadings, it is not significantly unfair to maintain the lower court’s judgment as they are, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the lower court’s judgment on the sole ground that the lower court’s judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the lower court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do494, Nov. 24, 2006; 201Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). The Defendant asserted that the grounds for appeal are identical to that of mistake and misunderstanding of the legal principles among the grounds for appeal, and the lower court explained the relevant legal principles and the specific circumstances of this case.