Although the Defendants did not assault the victim, the lower court found the Defendants guilty by misunderstanding the facts and sentenced the Defendants guilty.

2. Determination

A. In light of the relevant legal principles and the public trial-oriented principle, comprehensively considering the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court’s judgment as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance, unless there are exceptional cases deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14409, Feb. 25, 2010).

In this case, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to conclude that Defendant A was flicked with the victim’s snow part as stated in the facts charged, and that Defendant A’s act and the act of Defendant A’s act as described in the facts charged are the same as the act of Defendant A’s basic fact-finding, although it is acknowledged otherwise, Defendant A’s act and the act of Defendant A’s act as indicated in the facts charged are identical to that of the victim, and Defendant A’s act are recognized.