The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the Defendant did not administer philophones as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court found the Defendant guilty by misapprehending the fact and sentenced the Defendant guilty.

2. Determination

A. In light of the contents of the judgment of the court of first instance and the evidence duly examined in the court of first instance in relation to the principle of trial-oriented and the principle of direct examination, unless there exist special circumstances to deem that the judgment of the court of first instance was clearly erroneous, or in light of the contents of the judgment of the court of first instance and the evidence evidence duly examined in the court of first instance, it is considerably unfair to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness at the court of first instance when considering the results of the first instance examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted until the closing of arguments in the court of first instance, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the judgment of the court of first instance solely on the ground that the judgment of the court of first instance on the credibility of the statement made by the witness at the court of first instance is different from the judgment of the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1409, Feb. 25, 2010). However, it does not require any doubt that may be excluded.

As such, the credibility of a witness’s statement is not readily denied solely on the ground that the witness’s statement is somewhat inconsistent with the statements concerning other minor matters, where the witness’s statement is consistent in its main part (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do1335, Sept. 13, 194).

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do12112, Aug. 20, 2009). B.

The judgment of the court below and the court of the political party shall be duly adopted.