Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (special assault part) was committed only on the floor by the Defendant, and did not have a beer balance toward the victim. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts. 2) The sentence of the court below on the charges of unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the event that the appellate court’s decision on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts had not newly revealed objective grounds that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence during the trial process, but intended to re-examine the first instance court’s decision ex post facto and ex post facto, the first instance court’s decision was clearly erroneous

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court should not be reversed without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). In addition, where a witness’s statement is generally consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without permission, unless there is any separate evidence to deem that the witness’s statement conforms to the facts charged objectively and objectively lacks credibility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). In the lower court, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court consistently stated that “the victim was free cupped by the police from the police to the lower court,” and that the Defendant was concentrating the victim’s wall part under which the Defendant was seated.