During that period, A had his face sprinked to spher intentionally while dancingd to the defendant, and sponsed with a architectural drawing cited by the defendant, and there is no fact that A was sealed or abused.

When the defendant reported damage, A submitted a false diagnosis that he/she claimed as a victim, and he/she submitted it, but red reflects on the luminous face face part submitted by A are self-harm or fabricated photographs.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case based on the legal statement A by the witness of the court below which is not reliable. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment

2. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance court’s judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or unless there are extenuating circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance court’s judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or where it is obviously unreasonable to maintain the first instance court’s judgment as to the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse the first instance court’s judgment as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).