The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, in spite of the fact that the defendant was unilaterally assaulted by the victims, and that he was salvated by salping the victim's head debt, or salping the victim's head debt, and as soon as possible, salping the victim's head debt.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the instant facts charged C and D are de facto marital relations, C and E are in a de facto marital relationship, and the Defendant was de facto marital relationship with the above E and E.

On February 24, 2011, the Defendant, at around 20:00, performed drinking in the “Glaundryhouse” operated by the Victim C(39 years of age) in Suwon-si F, together with the Victim D (W, 44 years of age), and went to the said H’s singing room.

The Defendant first returned to the nearest distance from the singing room, but around 02:00 on February 25, 201, the Defendant moved to the residence located in Suwon-si I.

While the Defendant was in a bready dispute with the victim D who had a meal while drinking, the Defendant assaulted the victim D by hand by putting the head debt of the above D, and asked the victim C with his hair salute and hand twice as soon as possible by asking the victim C’s head salute and hand on two occasions in order to put the victim C’s head salute and salute in a way that requires approximately two weeks of treatment to the above C.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by compiling the evidence as indicated in its judgment.

C. (1) Considering the difference between the method of evaluating credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court in accordance with the spirit of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court clearly erred in the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the content of the first instance court and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or further evidence examination conducted between the result of the first instance court’s examination and the date of the closing of argument in the appellate court.