The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles) is that the Defendant is not the actual owner of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), and there was no participation in the instant larceny crime by ordering the theft of bills by J, etc., and there are various evidence that correspond to the Defendant’s defense counsel, such as the statement in the lower court’s court court at K and J. On the other hand, G’s actual owner B was merely a false statement made at an investigative agency and the lower court court to assume the Defendant’s main responsibility for the said crime. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the grounds of the statement, etc. without credibility, was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Considering the difference between the spirit of substantial direct psychological principle and the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance court was clearly erroneous 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 to view the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court, or in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results 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 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 determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). (b) In light of the above legal principles, in light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court, the Defendant was in collusion with J, B, as stated in the facts charged.