The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to each mistake of facts, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the Defendant also believed or belonged to F's horses to F, and embezzlement, the Defendant obtained the money as stated in paragraph (2) of the crime in the judgment of the court below by deceiving I et al. and used the damaged money as investment money to the victim because the Defendant informed I et al. that al. provided the money as stated in paragraph (2) of the crime in the judgment of the court below, and that it did not constitute embezzlement.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the difference between the original court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a witness’s statement in light of the contents of the original judgment and the evidence duly examined in the original judgment, the lower court’s judgment was clearly erroneous in determining the credibility of a witness’s statement in light of the content of the original judgment and the evidence duly examined in the original judgment.

If there are extenuating circumstances to see the lower court’s judgment as to the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the lower court, or in full view of the results of the examination of evidence at the lower court and the results of an additional examination conducted until the closing of oral proceedings, it is not significantly unfair to maintain the lower court’s judgment as they are, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the lower court’s judgment on the sole ground that the lower court’s judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the lower court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do494, Nov. 24, 2006; 201Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, this case was examined based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, in particular, the witness E’s legal statement made by the lower court; and the prosecutor’