A. Defendant (guilty part) - The Defendant - The Defendant - misunderstanding of the fact did not commit violence only with the victim’s fluence and general fluence, and did not intend to do so.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the defendant committed assault.

(b) Prosecutor 1) The defendant's act of misunderstanding the fact that the victim suffered an injury can be fully recognized;

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which did not recognize only the crime of assault against the defendant and did not recognize the bodily injury by assault is erroneous.

2) The lower court’s sentence (a sum of KRW 300,00,000,000) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts

In light of the fact that assault was found guilty.

Considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of the testimony made by the witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance court clearly erred in the determination on the credibility of the testimony made by the witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial and the result of further examination of evidence conducted by the time the appellate trial is final and conclusive, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court's judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).