The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) is as follows: (a) the defendant requested the customer to be the other party when locked, and (b) there was no fact that E joined with the customer, sold alcoholic beverages to the customer, and arranged for a loan.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. Under the current Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court shall be based on the inner judgment, but the so-called ex post facto review character, which has a substantial part of the ex post facto core elements, and thus, the appellate court should consider the characteristics of the structure of the first instance judgment when determining the legitimacy of the judgment in the appellate court.

Therefore, in the event that the appellate court did not have any objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence during the trial process, but intends to re-examine the first deliberation decision after the ex post facto determination, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the first deliberation decision was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc. In addition, the appellate court should not reverse without any such exceptional circumstance the judgment on the acknowledgement of facts in the first deliberation.

The conviction or innocence of a criminal case is based on the principle of court-oriented trial that the conviction or innocence shall be formed through a court-oriented trial, and the principle that only the evidence directly examined in the presence of a judge shall be based on a trial (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017). (b) There is no new objective reason that may affect the formation of a conviction during the party-oriented trial process in light of the above legal principles, and there is no new evidence newly discovered, and the court below’s reasoning is compared with the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below (in particular, the court below’s judgment is based on evidence).