A. In fact, misunderstanding the legal principles or misunderstanding the victim did not say that the victim told “the victim was punished by imprisonment for one year because of width” at the time of the instant crime, and there was only a fact that the defendant took back the victim’s face by reflecting the victim’s face, and there was no assault against the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found a witness H's statement in the investigation report by the police without admissibility as evidence is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of mental and physical disorder under the influence of alcohol.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (2 million won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness was clearly erroneous in light of the content of the lower judgment’s relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly examined by the lower court.

Unless there exist special circumstances to view that maintaining the judgment of the court below on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the court below is clearly unfair, or in full view of the results of the examination of evidence and the results of additional examination conducted until the closing of oral pleadings, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the judgment of the court below on the first instance solely on the ground that the judgment of the court below on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the court below is different from the judgment of the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012; 2010Do827, Oct. 14, 2010).

However, the expression of consent to the evidence set forth in Article 318 of the Criminal Procedure Act is intended.