The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding is only based on the facts indicated in the victim G, and there is no fact in the crime as stated in its reasoning with a knife.

B. The punishment of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In determining the credibility of a statement after the first instance court conducted the examination procedure for the witness examination, the determination of the credibility of the statement should be made by taking into account all the circumstances that are difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, including the witness appearance, attitude, penology, the penology of the statement, and the penology of the statement, as well as whether the content of the statement itself conforms to the rationality, logic, contradiction, or rule of experience, or conforms to evidence or third party’s statement after being sworn in the presence of a judge.

On the other hand, the appellate court's determination of credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance court under the current Criminal Procedure Act is based on the records including the witness examination protocol in principle. Thus, in determining credibility of the statement, there is an essential limitation that the appearance and attitude of the witness at the time of the statement that can be called one of the most important elements in determining credibility of the statement can not be reflected in the evaluation of credibility.

Considering the difference between the methods of evaluating credibility between the first instance court and the appellate court, the first instance court’s 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 by the first instance court.

The first instance court's decision on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is not deemed significantly unfair, in light of the special circumstances or the result of the first instance court's examination and the result of the additional examination of evidence conducted until the closing of the appellate court's pleading.