A. The statement of H, N, andO, consistent with the facts stated in the judgment of the court below, cannot be recognized as credibility, and even though the defendant suffered a bodily injury due to H's assault, the court below convicted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the relevant legal principles, the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of assessing the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or, except in exceptional cases where it is clearly deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is unreasonable considering the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted until the closing of argument in the appellate court, the appellate court shall not reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006; 2008Do42314, Jul. 29, 2010).

The judgment of the court below on the credibility of this case.