A. Defendant: Error of facts (the Defendant did not go beyond the victim's bridge) and misapprehension of legal principles ( even when it is assumed that the victim was suffering from the defendant's bridge, this constitutes an unjustifiable self-defense or a legitimate act because the victim's passive resistance was committed under the influence of the defendant's KON.).

Prosecutor: 2. Judgment of this Court

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance court’s judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous in light of the evidence examination conducted by the first instance court and the evidence examination conducted by the first instance court, except in exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is considerably unreasonable in full view of the evidence examination conducted by the first instance court and the evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument, the appellate court should not reverse the first instance court’s determination on the grounds that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court differs from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).

Even based on the results of the further examination of evidence (examination of witnesses H of the trial) conducted until the closing of arguments in the trial room, it is difficult to view that maintaining these judgments in the first instance court is considerably unfair.