All convictions of the first and second original judgments shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 9,000,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (as to the conviction of the second judgment of the court below), although the defendant was aware of the victim's face by drinking the victim's face, the defendant does not have to walk the victim's static mouth or wear the victim's seat by selling it.

B. The respective sentence of the lower court (the first instance court: the fine of KRW 6 million, and the second instance court: the fine of KRW 3 million) on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing (the first instance court: the second instance court) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on each of the grounds for appeal above ex officio, the first and second court sentenced the defendant to the above punishment, after having undergone a separate hearing against the defendant respectively, and the defendant filed an appeal against the first and second original judgments, and the court of the original instance decided to hold concurrent hearings. The first and second court's offenses against the defendant shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, all of the judgment of the court below cannot escape from reversal.

The conviction part of the first and second judgments of the court of appeal can no longer be maintained on the ground of the above ex officio reversal. However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. In light of the difference between the original judgment and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility in accordance with the spirit of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, it may be deemed that the original judgment clearly erred in the lower court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in light of the contents of the original judgment and the evidence duly examined by the lower court.