The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) (misunderstanding of facts) is that H (the Defendant’s wife B’s fraud) and I (the Defendant’s wife B’s wife’s wife’) reside in the lessee on the instant building “The Defendant, who is an employee in charge of lending funds from the victim E association, was informed in advance.”

In addition, as G is, the Defendant sent H to another address at the time of diving and received a written confirmation of free residence from I.

In consideration of such circumstances, the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged of the instant case, by deceiving the victim.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. Under the current Criminal Procedure Act, 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, since it has the so-called ex post facto review nature, which has a substantial part of the ex post facto core elements.

Therefore, even though there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the appellate trial’s trial process, when the appellate court intends to re-examine the first trial judgment after ex post facto determination, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the first trial judgment 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 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do2461, Dec. 6, 196). Accordingly, the appellate court’s conviction and acquittal of the substance of a criminal case should be formed through a court-oriented trial, and that it is based on the principle of substantial direct deliberation that only the evidence directly examined in the presence of a judge should be used as the basis of a trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017).