The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the 2018 Highest 1282 case), the Defendant did not indicate the purpose of the borrowed money at the time of borrowing money to the victim B.

The Defendant did not know at all the victim about the “bridged construction project plan” and did not wish to pay profits and interest in relation to the above project. Thus, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim.

It is a material that the Defendant may know of the fact that the victim asserted that he/she belonged to the Defendant and submitted to the investigative agency the “Hthatha 6 architectural agreement” and “Htha 6 introduced material,” etc.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining the credibility of a statement after the first instance court conducted the examination procedure for the examination of a witness, the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, as well as whether the content of the statement itself conforms to the rationality, logic, morality, or rule of experience, or conforms to the evidence or a third party’s statement, and also, such as 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 penology of the statement, etc., the credibility of the statement should be assessed 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 credibility in accordance with the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination as seen earlier, the contents of the first instance judgment and the appellate court.