Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

except that this judgment.

A. In spite of the fact that Defendant A (a factual error) did not commit an assault against Defendant B, the lower court erred by misapprehending the inaccurate and contradictory witness’s statement, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

B. The sentence of the court below is too unreasonable in light of the agreement with the victims of Defendant B (unfair punishment) and the circumstances leading up to the obstruction of the performance of official duties of this case.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the difference between the original court and the appellate court’s method of evaluation of credibility in accordance with the spirit of substantial direct examination adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, if there are special circumstances to deem that the lower court’s determination on the credibility of a witness’s statement was clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the original judgment and the evidence duly examined by the court below, or there are exceptional cases where it is obviously unreasonable to maintain the lower court’s determination on the credibility of a witness’s statement in light of the evidence examination results at the original court and the evidence duly examined by the court below, the appellate court should not reverse the lower court’s determination on the ground that the lower court’s determination on the credibility of a witness’s statement made by the witness differs from the appellate court’s determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012; 2018Do1748, Jul. 24, 2019).

On the other hand, the statements of witnesses and B who were present in the colonial house, the first place of the violence, are old and the memory is not accurate, but in substitution, the defendant A was gathering beer and beer for the defendant B.