The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) was not sufficient for the Defendant to attract the damaged party to the market, as stated in the facts constituting the offense of the lower court.

2. In light of the spirit of substantial direct deliberation under the Criminal Procedure Act adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court clearly erred in the first instance judgment as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial.

In light of the special circumstances or the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of the further examination of evidence by the time of the closure of pleadings, maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court shall not without permission, solely on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the appellate court, which are relatively consistent from the police to the appellate court, to the second instance trial, (i) the victim was unable to get the victim’s left side while the defendant tried to leave the previous vehicle from the front side of the trial, and (ii) the victim was able to have the victim’s left side portion of the witness on the front side of the market machinery led by the defendant, and (iii) the victim was not able to have the victim left part of the witness on the second instance trial.

In order to obtain unfair profits without regard and otherwise in the records.