A. In light of the content of the first instance judgment as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance judgment as to the credibility of the statement made by the first instance witness was clearly erroneous in the determination.

Unless there exist extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance trial and the result of an additional examination of evidence by the time the appellate trial is final and conclusive, 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 a statement made by a witness of the first instance trial is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do494, Nov. 24, 2006; 2017Do7871, Mar. 29, 2018). The Defendant asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court examined the injured witness C as a witness, and there is credibility in the victim’s statement that conforms to this part of the facts charged.

Based on the judgment, the defendant was pronounced guilty.

Even if the court below duly adopted and examined the evidence, it was clearly erroneous in its determination.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, such as the statement of C with credibility, the fact that the Defendant assaulted C can be sufficiently recognized as stated in the lower court’s holding.

B. The defendant was punished for the same offense.