가. 사실 오인 피고인은 피해자와 말다툼을 하던 중 싱크대에 놓여 있던 과도를 벽을 향해 손으로 툭 친 적이 있을 뿐 가위를 들고 원심 판시 범죄사실 기재와 같이 말하거나 칼을 피해 자의 배에 들이댄 적도 없으며 칼로 싱크대를 찍은 적도 없다.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a punishment of KRW 5 million, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Considering the difference between the spirit of the principle of substantial direct deliberation and the method of evaluating the credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in 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 court as it is, in light 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 court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). The lower court also asserted the same as above in the lower court, and rejected the above assertion in detail on the grounds that the Defendant’s assertion and its detailed judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court are different from that of the appellate court’s judgment.

Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of mistake of facts as pointed out by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(b).