Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the facts charged of this case.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted to the same effect as the grounds for the instant appeal in the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court rejected the allegation on the specific grounds under the title “the grounds for conviction.”

B. (1) In light of the content of the judgment of the first instance court and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance trial was clearly erroneous.

In light of the above legal principles, if there are special circumstances to view that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is considerably unfair, or if the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is not allowed, the appellate court may not reverse without permission the first instance court’s determination on the ground that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court differs from the appellate court’s determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. In other words, the victim appeared as a witness of the court of first instance and sees “the witness after drinking, G, H and drinking,” and the witness followed the witness after drinking the witness.

“The statement was made” (the trial record No. 41 pages), and the above statement made by the injured party is specific and written to the investigation agency as to the circumstances of the instant case or the situation at the time.