A. Defendant 1) The Defendant was only aware of a dispute with the victim, and did not assault the victim as described in the facts charged.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the sole basis of the statements of the victim and witness F, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the method of evaluating the credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court in accordance with the spirit of the substantial direct trial principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, the first instance court’s decision on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake was clearly erroneous in the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court’s first instance trial.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance trial and the result of further examination of evidence conducted by the court of first instance until the closing of pleadings, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). The lower court directly examined the victim and witness of the first instance court and convicted him of the charges of this case by recognizing the credibility of the testimony. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the lower court and investigated by the court of first instance, it is reasonable that the lower court convicted the Defendant of the charges of this case.