The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. misunderstanding of facts on the grounds of appeal, mental and physical disability, and unfair sentencing; 2. The judgment of this court

A. Unless there exist special circumstances as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance differs from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). In light of such legal principles, the first instance judgment that the victim believed the specific statement made by the first instance court as a witness was clearly erroneous.

In the instant case where it is difficult to view that maintaining the judgment of the first instance court is considerably unfair even if the result of an additional examination of evidence was conducted by the time the arguments in the trial or by the time the arguments in the trial are concluded, the first instance court's decision that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is acceptable based on such evidence, and there is no illegality such as misunderstanding of facts that affected the judgment, and thus, the Defendant'

B. In light of the record as to the assertion of mental disorder, it is difficult to view that the defendant at the time did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions or did not have the ability to make decisions, the above assertion by the defendant is not acceptable.

C. In full view of the Defendant’s history of having been punished several times due to violence, damage to property, etc., the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime, and risk of recidivism, etc., it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s fine imposed by the first instance court is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation that raised this point is unacceptable.

3. Conclusion.