Nevertheless, there is an error of misconception of facts in the judgment of the court of first instance that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of injury.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In the absence of a new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial process, when the appellate court intends to re-examine the first instance court’s decision after ex post facto determination, it clearly erred in the first instance court’s determination as evidence.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is in violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as is, and there should be no reasonable grounds to deem that it is significantly unfair, and the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court shall not be reversed without such exceptional circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017).

In light of the above legal principles, this case is examined.

The Defendant, even in the first instance court, argued the same purport as the reasons for appeal, and the court of the first instance rejected the Defendant’s assertion, and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged, by explaining the ground for its judgment at the bottom of “a summary of evidence”.

A thorough examination is conducted by comparing the above judgment of the court of first instance with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance. Examining the following circumstances, the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury upon the victim D, such as the facts charged, can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the above decision of 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.

Victim D is consistent with the facts of damage from the investigation stage to the court of first instance.