The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principle) provided money to E and entrusted a part of the cultivation to E, and the Defendant actually got a farmer.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a witness’s statement in accordance with the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court’s judgment on the ground that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a witness’s statement was clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a witness’s statement was clearly erroneous in light of the evidence examination results of the first instance court and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, and that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a witness’s statement made by the first instance court until the closing of argument in the appellate court is clearly unreasonable, except in exceptional cases where the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a witness’s statement made by the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s determination (Supreme Court Decision

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the witness E and F’s statement at the police station, which seems consistent with the defendant’s argument, the court below rejected the defendant’s assertion on the ground that the defendant did not entrust the defendant with some cultivation, but it can be recognized that E was a farming house on the second parcel of land owned by the defendant, and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

The evidence of this case.