The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gu Government District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the nature of a post-trial even after the fact that it has the nature of a trial and the spirit of substantial direct trial as an element of the trial-oriented principle as stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Act, even though the first instance court, who directly observed the witness’s appearance and attitude in the process of witness examination for the witness who supported the facts charged, cannot recognize the credibility of the witness’s statement, the appellate court may reverse it and recognize the credibility of the witness’s statement.

In order to consider the credibility of the statement as evidence for conviction, the first instance judgment rejecting the credibility of the statement must appear to be acceptable and sufficient (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006; 2015Do11428, Feb. 18, 2016). The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the vice president of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant Company”), and the Defendant did not have the intent or ability as follows. On December 2, 2013, the Defendant sold 1200 shares equivalent to 15% of the shares of the instant Company owned by the victim, while selling 200 shares equivalent to 120% of the shares of the instant Company owned by the victim, the remainder of the shares to be used by the victim, and by deceiving the victim to transfer the shares to the victim with the profits of transferring the shares, and the acquisition of the shares was equivalent to 60 million won of the transfer contract.

In regard to this, the Defendant, instead of withdrawing the lawsuit claiming a loan amounting to KRW 55 million, filed by the instant company against the victim, received the return of the shares he knew to have been trusted to the victim as an investor of the funds to the instant company, and did not state as stated in the facts charged.

The argument was asserted.

On the other hand, the victim is the actual right holder of the shares of this case and the transfer contract of shares.