The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the basis of the victim's statement, injury diagnosis report, etc. although the defendant did not have inflicted injury on the victim C by reducing the victim C's knife by hand, it erred by mistake of facts.

2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, evidence that corresponds to the fact that the Defendant left the victim’s interest by hand is concerned with the statement of the victim C. As such, the victim C’s credibility of the victim’s statement is consistent with the investigation agency to the lower court’s court and the court at the time, and the record reveals that the victim C made a detailed statement on the circumstances at the time when the Defendant left the victim’s interest at the time when the Defendant left the victim’s seat at the cultural park and the situation where the victim got the victim’s interest to be treated at the hospital.

In light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, if there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or if the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance is clearly unfair considering the results of the first instance examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time the closing of argument in the appellate court is clearly unreasonable, the appellate court may not reverse the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4449, Jul. 29, 2010) solely on the premise of legal principles, the lower court’s determination on the credibility of the victim C’s statement is clearly clear.