Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

A. Fact-finding (the second judgment of the court below) The Defendant did not see the victim’s left eye due to an empty beer disease.

B. Each judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the first judgment of the court below: the fine of KRW 500,000, and the second judgment: the fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance on the defendant's ex officio determination were sentenced to each of the above two appeals cases, and the court of second instance decided to hold concurrent hearings. Since each of the offenses against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first and second instance are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be sentenced to one sentence under Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court of first and second instance cannot be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts against the second judgment is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. 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, the defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the second instance judgment, and the second instance court found the defendant guilty of the charges by integrating the evidence in its judgment.

The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, namely, the victim's investigation agency and the court below, who correspond to the facts charged in this case.