The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The lower court convicted the Defendant on the ground that there was no credibility, such as the misunderstanding of the substance of the grounds for appeal or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (the point of sale of philopon) and the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, and the misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, that there was no consistency in the statements of B and G, and that it is inconsistent with the objective evidence, such as B’s moving routes, etc. at February 2, 2017.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In light of the contents of the judgment of the first instance court on the assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles and the evidence duly examined by the first instance 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.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial and the result of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of the appellate trial, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006; 2017Do7871, Mar. 29, 2018). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is clearly unfair, and the second instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is not deemed to be unfair. However, even if the evidence duly admitted and the second instance court additionally examined the evidence, the statement made by G is credibility.

B relatively consistent from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, on February 2, 2017, the Defendant, “Cro-ro, by searching for and selling a high-speed philopon from Daegu to receive the following money,” and then receiving the philopon by the said method, and then giving G the philopon.