2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant was not guilty on the ground that, in light of the witness H’s legal statement at the lower court, F’s legal statement at the lower court, F’s statement in the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the Defendant, F’s statement in the police preparation protocol, G injury occurrence report based on F’s statement, victim’s photograph, investigation report (119 telephone statement), and investigation report (119 employees and telephone calls). However, in view of the witness H’s watching’s audio-visual viewing process, including video recording pictures, F’s statement at the lower court’s trial, weather (CCTV; hereinafter “CCTV”), F’s statement was inconsistent in the victim’s place and method, etc., the victim’s 313 east-3 east of E University at the scene of assault was insufficient to prove that the Defendant was not guilty on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant was not guilty on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the Defendant was not guilty on the ground that the Defendant was not inside the lower court’s floor.

B. The appellate court’s judgment 1) In light of the difference between the method of evaluating the credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court in accordance with the spirit of substantial direct deliberation adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as one of the elements of the trial-oriented principle, the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance court was clearly erroneous, in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court.

The first instance court's decision on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is not deemed significantly unfair, in light of the special circumstances or the result of the first instance court's examination and the result of the additional examination of evidence conducted until the closing of the appellate court's pleading.