The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant misunderstanding the facts (in relation to a crime of special intimidation), cited a certified pen and stated that there was only a dispute about the victims and their behaviors about the recovery of slocks, and there was no knife and no death of the victims.

There is no intimidation.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the above victims guilty of this part of the facts charged solely with the legal statement, etc. of the above victims who are difficult to recognize credibility is erroneous.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) In determining the credibility of a statement following the examination procedure conducted by the first instance court of the relevant legal doctrine, the credibility of the statement should be assessed by taking into account all the circumstances that are difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, including the appearance and attitude of the witness, and the penology of the statement, which are hard to record in the witness examination protocol, after being sworn in the presence of a judge, such as whether the content of the statement itself conforms to the rationality, logical inconsistency, or empirical rule, or conforms to the evidence or third party’s statement.

On the other hand, the appellate court's determination of credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance court under the current Criminal Procedure Act is based on the records including the witness examination protocol in principle. Thus, in determining credibility of the statement, there is an essential limitation that the appearance and attitude of the witness at the time of the statement that can be called 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 methods of evaluating credibility between the first instance court and the appellate court, the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court.

special circumstances to see.