The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant received KRW 10,000 from the victim as money for real estate development business and operation business, not from the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. The first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous when it was intended to re-examine the first instance court’s judgment and subsequently determine it ex post facto, although there was no objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the process of the trial.

A reasonable ground exists to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is in contravention of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on fact-finding of the first instance court should not be reversed without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). In addition, where a witness’s statement is generally consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without permission, unless there is any separate evidence to deem that the witness’s statement conforms to the facts charged objectively and objectively lacks credibility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). The lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court stated that “the victim” was able to only meet the Fair Trade Commission and road construction workers, and that the victim was given a 100 million won loan from the victim’s name and 10 million won, following the victim’s statement being made consistent with G’s statement.