A. As to Defendant A1’s violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury with a deadly weapon, etc.), there is no fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury upon the victim due to a fluoral disease as stated in the judgment of the court below. 2) The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental health disorder due to drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes.

3) The sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable. B. Defendant B (Defendant B) was in the state of mental disability or mental disorder due to drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one month of imprisonment is too unlimited and unfair).

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the original court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of the statement made by a witness in light of the contents of the original judgment and the evidence duly examined in the original judgment, or there are exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the lower court’s judgment as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the original judgment is remarkably unfair, the appellate court should not reverse the lower court’s judgment on the sole ground that the lower court’s judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the original judgment is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006; 201Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012) on the grounds that the lower court’s judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the original judgment differs from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2012>