A. The Defendant did not commit an assault by impairing the victim’s shoulder, such as in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the first instance court that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

B. The judgment of the court of first instance on the defendant's grounds of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the first instance court’s determination was clearly erroneous when it was intended to re-examine the first instance court’s decision after its ex post facto determination, even though there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the process of the trial.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the first instance court, and the court of first instance rejected the Defendant’s assertion and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged, by clearly explaining the grounds for the judgment in the “matters regarding the Defendant’s assertion” as to this part of the grounds for appeal.

A thorough examination of the above judgment by the court of first instance compared with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance. According to the above evidence, the defendant's shoulder as stated in the facts charged is recognized that the victim gets faced with the front line. Thus, the above judgment by the court of first instance is just, and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

B. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is discretionary.