A. The lower court rejected the credibility of the victim’s statement on the ground that the victim’s statement partially reversed, but the victim’s statement is specific and consistent in the core part on the background and contents of the damage.

With respect to the Defendant’s crime on January 5, 2016, the victim was unable to anticipate that the Defendant would engage in self-defense, and the victim should report and interview “Ilman” in the court of the original instance.

“I heard the horses and think that the Defendant’s body was locked.”

It does not seem that a talk about self-defluencing, which shows only a alleman's body and was the first story.

When the defendant self-defensed by the defendant, he was unable to immediately avoid the entrance in toilet partitions. However, the defendant could not immediately avoid the entrance in the toilet partitions.

Although that demand was made, it was not possible to say that there was a conflict of interest and there was only one in such a space.

The victim made the statement clearly that "the defendant's act of self-defense is committed," and the victim asked for self-defense and self-defense.

“The statement to the effect that it was “,” but it may be partly confused with the Defendant’s “Iluri” story.

In addition, in relation to the criminal act on January 25, 2016 of the defendant, the victim " will compel the defendant to commit self-defense" in advance.

There is no consent, and at the time, the defendant forced the defendant to force the defendant to commit a self-defense, and it is not his own discretion.

Inasmuch as “the statements are consistently made”.

Although the victim's statement is consistent and concrete, and there is no clear ground to suspect the credibility of the above statement, the judgment of the court below that rejected the victim's statement's credibility by accepting only the defendant's vindication and finding a mistake in fact.