The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. The decision of this court on February 2, 199, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles (the act of the defendant is not unlawful because it constitutes self-defense or legitimate act). The decision of this court on the following grounds: (a) misunderstanding of the gist of the grounds for appeal (the first instance court has a lot of portions to suspect the behavior of the victim F and credibility of the statement; (b) reliance on the victim's statement; (c) the degree of damage the victim suffered at the time is so minor that treatment is not necessary for treatment; and (d) there is no evidence that the defendant

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

In this case, it is difficult to view that maintaining the judgment of the first instance court is considerably unfair even if it is based on the result of the further examination of evidence conducted by the time of the closing of argument in the trial (the statement of the fact-finding reply submitted as evidence in the trial, according to the records of the fact-finding reply submitted as evidence in the trial, the victim was under the diagnosis at G Hospital on the following day after the occurrence of the case, and was provided with a prescription for it, and the victim was issued with a medical certificate that requires two-time medical treatment after the lapse of 10 days from that date, and the victim's wife was issued with the above degree of injury. It is sufficient to deem that the victim's wife constitutes injury if it is the above degree of injury, and even if the defendant was contingent, it is recognized that the victim had the intention of injury at least at least even if there was negligence).