A. Regarding misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant entered the instant residence with D’s permission, a resident, and entered the instant residence.

On the point of violence, there is no fact that the defendant did not assault D, and since D assaults the defendant, the defendant only passively defended the defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the ground of false statement D, etc. is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

(1) Determination is made in the meaning of the date of the first pleading, the date of ex officio promotion, and 2.

A. In a criminal trial proceeding for determining the credibility of a statement after the first instance court proceeded with the witness examination procedure in a criminal trial proceeding for a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, not only is it conforms to the rationality, logic, morality, or rule of experience of the content of the statement itself, but also is consistent with the witness evidence or a third party’s statement, such as the appearance or attitude of a witness who is employed in the statement in the open court after being sworn before a judge, and the penance of the statement, etc., which are difficult to record, the credibility of the statement should be assessed by directly observing various circumstances that are difficult to record.

On the other hand, the appellate court's determination of credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court under the current Criminal Procedure Act is based on the records including the witness examination protocol in principle, so it has an essential limitation that the appearance and attitude of the witness at the time of the statement that can be considered one of the most important elements in determining credibility of the statement can not be reflected in the evaluation of credibility.

Considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court's method of evaluating the credibility of the witness's statement of the first instance court in accordance with the spirit of the principle of direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act.