The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not assault the Victim F, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial proceeding to determine the credibility of a statement after the first instance court proceeded with the witness examination procedure in a criminal trial proceeding to determine the falsity of the statement, not only is it consistent with the rationality of the statement itself or empirical rule, but also is consistent with the witness evidence or third party’s statement, such as the appearance or attitude of a witness, and the penology of the statement, which is difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, after being sworn in the presence of a judge, shall be evaluated by taking into account all such circumstances as are difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, including the appearance or attitude of a witness, and the penology of the statement.

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 first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of the testimony of the witness of the first instance court in accordance with the spirit of the direct trial system adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous in the first instance court’s determination as to the credibility of the testimony of the 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.

The credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial in full view of the results of the first examination of evidence and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of the appellate trial.