2. Under the current Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court should consider the characteristics of the structure of the first instance court when determining the legitimacy of the judgment in the appellate court, since the appellate court has the nature of the so-called ex post facto review, which has a substantial part of the ex post facto review elements.

Therefore, even though there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial process, the first instance court's decision was clearly erroneous in the first instance court's decision when it is intended to re-examine the first instance court's decision ex post facto and ex post facto.

There should be reasonable grounds to believe that the argument leading to the fact-finding is not against logical and empirical rules to maintain the decision as it is, and there should be no reasonable grounds to reverse the decision on the fact-finding of the first instance court without such exceptional circumstances.

In principle, it is consistent with the spirit of substantial direct cross-examination, which serves as the basis of trial-oriented principle that the conviction or innocence of a criminal case should be formed by a court hearing, and only the evidence directly examined in the presence of a judge.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant has already asserted the same as the mistake of facts in the lower court.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, and examined whether the above judgment is justified.

The most important and direct evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this case is the statement in the investigative agency of the victim and in the court of original instance that "the defendant inflicted an injury as shown in the facts charged," and whether the victim's statement has credibility.

As the counsel pointed out, it is the petition for complaint.