2. The lower court determined that it cannot be readily concluded that a false statement was made on the grounds of the same reasons as indicated in the judgment, since it is likely to have made a statement or an exaggeration of memory in accordance with memory.

Upon examining the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law that misleads facts or affects the judgment in violation of law.

Specific reasons for judgment are as follows.

The overall purport of the Defendant’s testimony is that “(i) he was challenged by B by assaulting C with the face of C, but did not pay it for drinking, and ② even during the body fighting that occurred thereafter, B was drinking or not drinking to C, and sold to C in order not to comply with C.”

1. B's face value is recognized as having been in his/her hand, but it is not clear whether he/she has sold it as drinking.

Whether the Defendant’s testimony was sealed or not does not deny the exercise of tangible power itself due to the difference in the degree of exercise of tangible power.

The prosecutor's defendant stated that "B was engaged only in C's arms and did not look at C in order to not comply with B immediately after the back-up price." However, the question of the previous counsel stated that "B was sealed immediately after the back-up price." The previous counsel stated that "B was faced with C's face." Following the above statement, it is likely that B made a wrong understanding that it was possible to inquire about the process of the body fighting that occurred thereafter.

② In the process of physical fighting that occurred thereafter, B actively attacked C, such as taking the shoulder part of C, and thus, the Defendant’s statement that C was sold during the process of physical fighting goes against the facts.