However, the lower court determined that the Defendant inflicted an injury on A and G.

As such, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Considering the difference between the spirit of substantial direct psychological principle and the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility, the first instance judgment 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 in the first instance court.

Unless there exist special circumstances to view that maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is significantly unfair, 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 should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). (b) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged in view of the testimony made by the witness G of the lower court and the part of the statement made by the witness H and F of the lower court.

(c)

In light of the above legal principles, a thorough examination of the reasoning of the judgment below by comparing it with the records is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.