A. The Defendant, as stated in this part of the facts charged, did not commit an injury by assaulting the victim D, such as assaulting the victim D.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds of the statement of the victim D without credibility is erroneous.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the victim D’s statement is consistent and specific, as well as the fact that there is no inconsistency with other evidence, such as the victim D’s victim’s damaged body photographs and the Defendant’s hand-de photographs taken by the police officer dispatched, etc. at the time, the lower court determined that the victim D’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged in this part is credibility and found guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2) In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court.

Except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance trial, or in full view of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of the appellate trial, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance trial is different from the appellate court’s judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3846 Decided June 24, 2010).