A. Fact-misunderstanding ① The Defendant did not have a big dispute with the victim at the time of the instant case; ② the victim could have been mixed with the victim under the influence of alcohol; and the blood trace discovered in the wooden box, i.e., the means of crime, cannot be known as to what route it was, and thus, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim.

Although it cannot be seen, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the ground of the victim's statement is erroneous by mistake of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The degree of formation of a conviction for finding a witness guilty in a criminal trial as to the assertion of facts must be such that there is no reasonable doubt. However, it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and rejection of evidence acknowledged as probative value by causing a suspicion without any reasonable ground is not allowed beyond the limit of the principle of free evaluation of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do1335, Sept. 13, 1994). If a witness’s statement is consistent in the main part, it does not unreasonably deny the credibility of the witness’s statement without permission just on the ground that the witness’s statement is inconsistent with the witness’s statement, such as the witness’s statement or reasoning, and the witness’s statement or testimony conforms with the rule of experience, such as the witness’s own testimony or testimony, and the witness’s own testimony or testimony in the presence of a judge after the witness’s testimony or testimony, are inconsistent with the witness’s own logic or rationale after the witness examination.