The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty in the absence of assault against the victim is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant.

2. The first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous when it was intended to re-examine the first instance court’s judgment and subsequently determine it ex post facto, although there was no objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the process of the trial.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court should not be reversed without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). In addition, in a case where a witness’s statement is generally consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without permission, unless there is any separate evidence to deem that the witness’s statement conforms to the facts charged objectively and objectively lacks credibility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). In the lower court, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected it and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s aforementioned judgment, namely, the victim reported that the Defendant was a drunk driver on March 7, 2016, and the blood alcohol level was detected by 0.069% as a result of the alcohol measurement by the Defendant, and the victim stated that the Defendant was an assault from the Defendant during the reporting process on the date of the report, and the prosecutor made a decision to suspend indictment on the grounds that the prosecutor requested the Defendant to conduct a psychological physiological test, but the psychological physiological test was not conducted with the Defendant’s father’s consent.