A. Defendant A did not have any fact that he drinked B’s face (a fact-finding) and Defendant’s act of cutting off B’s face constitutes self-defense (legal scenarios) and the lower court’s punishment (fine 700,000 won) is too unreasonable.

(F) 2.2

Defendant

B The Defendant did not have suffered injury by drinking A’s face and head (a factual error), and the Defendant’s act of breathing A’s breath constitutes self-defense (legal scenario) and the lower court’s punishment (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

(F) Determination; 2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the original court and the appellate court’s method of evaluation of credibility in accordance with the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, if there are special circumstances to deem that the lower court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in light of the contents of the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly examined by the court below, or if there are exceptional cases where it is obviously unreasonable to maintain the lower court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the lower court in full view of the evidence examination and the evidence duly examined by the court below, the appellate court should not reverse the lower court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness only on the ground that the lower court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness is different from the appellate court’s determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). According to the above legal principle, considering the evidence duly adopted by the lower court and the evidence, the victim A and the victim B’s face.