The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant was unilaterally assaulted by the victim of mistake of facts, and there is no fact that the victim's head debt was flicked.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

Judgment on the defendant's misunderstanding of facts

A. When the first instance court examines the credibility of a statement after the witness examination procedure was conducted, it is necessary to assess the credibility of the statement by taking into account all the circumstances that make it difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, including whether the content of the statement itself conforms to the rationality, logic, appearance, or rule of experience, or whether it conforms to other evidence, and whether it conforms to other evidence. The appearance and attitude of the witness who is attending the statement in the open court, and the penance of the statement, etc.

On the other hand, in principle, the appellate court's judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness at the court of first instance is based on the records including the witness examination protocol, so it is difficult to reflect the appearance and attitude of the witness at the time of making a statement that can be considered one of the most important elements when determining the credibility of the statement in the evaluation.

In light of these circumstances, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a witness’s statement made by the first instance court is clearly erroneous, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a witness’s statement made by the first instance court is deemed significantly unfair, except in exceptional cases where it is deemed that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a witness’s statement made by the first instance court was clearly erroneous, based on the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence examination conducted by the first instance court.