However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the basis of the statements of the victim and H.

2) The sentence of the lower court that was unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,00) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is justifiable.

① As evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court witness H and the victim made a statement.

H consistently maintained from the investigation stage to the original trial to the accused.

At the time, H was able to observe the speech and behavior of the Defendant and the victim in a relatively accurate manner outside the entrance of the shop of the Defendant, and there seems to be no motive to make a false statement as a witness of the situation is likely to have appeared to be there.

Therefore, H's statement is reliable, and the victim's statement that corresponds to this is also reliable.

The credibility of the above statement was impeachmentd solely by the letter of confirmation (Evidence No. 1) prepared by Q, a spouse of the defendant,

shall not be deemed to exist.

② Meanwhile, as evidence consistent with the Defendant’s assertion, the lower court’s witness I made a statement.

In this regard, I's statements are difficult to believe as they are in the following respects:

I seems to have been difficult to observe the work between the defendant and the victim more accurately because he was in the second-lane cafeteria cafeteria cafeteria at the time.

Both the Defendant and the victim have expressed a bath to the other party.

The statement was made (13 pages, 42 pages) and H made a statement to the effect that they were given and received through each other at the time of investigation (the trial record).