The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, through the victim B, did not borrow money from the victim B while receiving KRW 2 million from F through the victim B.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining the credibility of a statement after the first instance court proceeded with the witness examination procedure in the criminal trial procedure of a mistake of facts, not only is it consistent with the rationality, logic, and empirical rule itself, but also with evidence or a third party’s statement in the presence of a judge, but also the appearance or attitude of a witness who is employed in the statement in the open court after being sworn at the presence of a judge, and the protocol of witness examination, such as the pen of the witness, the pen of the statement, etc., which is difficult to record, shall be evaluated as credibility by directly observing various circumstances that are difficult to record.

On the other hand, the appellate court's determination of credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court under the current Criminal Procedure Act is based on the records including the witness examination protocol in principle, so it has an essential limitation that the appearance and attitude of the witness at the time of the statement that can be considered 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 evaluating the credibility of the testimony made by the witness of the first instance court in accordance with the spirit of the principle of direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the testimony made by the witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the testimony made by the witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous, taking into account the results of the first