폭행등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal lies in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment (2014 high-level 1338), and there was no assault against the victim that the victim A would take a defendant at the time and place recorded in the column of [2014 high-level 138] of the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, and there was no injury to the management office of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul apartment (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) at the time and time stated in the judgment of the lower court, nor damaged the entrances of the election commission office in the location of the apartment of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), and there was no injury to the defendant as to each of the facts of the instant case on the ground that the facts of the crime of the lower judgment were recorded in [2014 high-level 2577] as of October 31, 2013 at the time and place, or made a statement by stating specific matters
2. Determination
A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in accordance with the spirit of substantial direct cross-examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, if there are extenuating circumstances to deem that the first instance court clearly erred in the determination of the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance, or in light of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of the evidence examination additionally made up until the time of closing argument, the appellate court should not reverse the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance solely on the ground that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance differs from the judgment made by the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).
Although the court below also asserted the same purport as the above reasons for appeal, the court below held the witness I and J respectively, and set forth the third time.