A. The Defendant of mistake of facts was led out of the datte by bating fat by the victim E, and did not assault the victim as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 300,000) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the spirit of substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or in view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional examination of evidence conducted by the time the closing of argument in the appellate trial, maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly unreasonable, the appellate court should respect the determination on the credibility of the statement made

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do5313 Decided June 14, 2012, etc.). Based on the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court directly examined the facts charged of this case by following the process of examining the witness E and witness F, etc.: (a) acknowledged the credibility of the witness E’s legal statement and witness F’s legal statement; and (b) convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case by recognizing the credibility of the witness E’s legal statement and witness F’s legal statement; (c) the lower court clearly erred in its determination of credibility of each of the

The defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit, since it seems that maintaining the judgment of the court below on the credibility of the judgment is not significantly unfair.

B. Although the defendant is an elderly auditor with hearing disability (class 5), living conditions are not good, and the defendant's damage caused by the crime of this case seems to be relatively minor, the court below has already considered the circumstances favorable to the defendant.