상해등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. As to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles), the Defendant did not have inflicted any injury on the victim, and with respect to the damage of property, the Handphone of the victim did not damage the victim's body fighting, and the Defendant did not damage it. As to the obstruction of business, the Defendant is a legitimate act to prevent the victim from infringing the business rights.
2. 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 assertion of mistake of facts 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 by the first instance court.
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 judgment made by the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). In light of the above legal principles, a thorough examination of the evidence by the court below, such as the witness F and E, was clearly erroneous in the lower court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness.
There is no special reason to view that the defendant has inflicted an injury on the victim at the time, time, and place of the ruling, and can recognize the fact that the defendant has damaged the victim's property, so the defendant's misconception of facts
3. It violates the social rules of Article 20 of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles.