A. Although there was a fact that the Defendant made a conversation with I, J, the Defendant did not make a statement to the effect that “The G real estate operated by the Victim H was recorded in the transactional relationship and threatened him with it to the extent that it was 3 million won by means of intimidation” as shown in the facts charged.

The victim was sentenced to a summary order of 700,000 won due to the crime of assaulting the defendant, and thereby, lost the defendant in civil procedure.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground of the testimony of the I without credibility, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a 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, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance in light of the evidence examination conducted by the first instance court and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is not different from the appellate court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by the witness of the first instance, except in exceptional cases where it is clearly deemed that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by the witness of the first instance is clearly erroneous or that the additional evidence examination conducted by the time the argument was concluded by the time the appellate court was concluded. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).