Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case because it did not believe the victim's statement. The court below erred in misunderstanding of facts.

2. Determination

A. Around 11:00 on February 8, 2019, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s face one time in drinking, at the entrance of the D cafeteria located on the second floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2019.

B. The lower court determined that, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the prosecutor, it is difficult to view that the instant facts charged were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

① In light of the fact that the victim’s statement on the specific date and place where the victim was the victim of the instant assault from the Defendant is inconsistent, and the content and attitude of the victim’s overall testimony at the court of original instance, it is difficult to believe the victim’s statement.

② The court below stated that “D” restaurant (C building F, hereinafter referred to as the “instant restaurant”) operated by the victim stated in the court below that “I do not have any string of the instant vehicle every day with the victim, and there is no string any string of the instant vehicle with the victim, and there is no string of the sound at all at all on the date stated in the facts charged that I prepared for the instant restaurant and corridor, as stated in the facts charged.”

③ The Defendant and the victim had conflict in relation to the payment of the interest on the loan obligation that was loaned by the said F, as security.