The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant did not receive money or card from L as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment below.

2. Considering the difference between the spirit of the principle of substantial direct deliberation and the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of the testimony, the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous in its determination as to the credibility of the statement made by the first instance court witness in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court.

Unless there exist special circumstances or comprehensively considering the results of the first instance examination and the results of further examination of evidence conducted by the court of first instance until the closing of oral proceedings, maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is clearly unfair, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole 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 Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). Such legal principles and the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the time, place and method of issuing money or card to the defendant from the investigative agency to the appellate court, the amount and source of money to the defendant, circumstances leading up to the defendant, the circumstances leading up to the issuance of the card or card to the defendant, the circumstances leading up to the issuance of the defendant, and ② the circumstances and place of the defendant’s 201D account, 20.