A. Of the Defendant’s testimony in a criminal case against misunderstanding of facts D (this Court Decision 2011 High Court Decision 2927), “E’s violent use part” was mistakenly written in the Defendant’s testimony, and ② “The part where there was no security personnel at the site of the case” was rejected at the time of questioning to the effect that “at the time of initial assault, there was no security personnel at the time of initial assault” and “after the time of initial assault, there was no security personnel personnel,” thereby complying with F. M’s statement, which is a security personnel, and ③ “the part where the Defendant had visited H hospital in the past,” was testified to the effect that “the purpose of inquiry was “whether there was a fact that there was a fact that there was a visit at H hospital” in the trial record, and there was no false statement contrary to memory, and even if there was no evidence that there was no evidence that there was a criminal suspect at the time of the assault, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

B. The sentence (five million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the Defendant may fully recognize the facts alleged above as stated in the lower judgment.

(1) The part regarding the use of violence in E is consistent from the investigative agency to the trial court since D and E, and (2) the Defendant’s wife stated that E used the Defendant at the time of the trial court, thereby complying with the Defendant’s defense. However, there is room for doubt as to the credibility of the statement in view of the relationship between the Defendant and L, and thus, it is difficult to readily conclude that D and E’s statement alone has no credibility.