All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants were not guilty of assaulting the victim as stated in the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the original court and the appellate court’s method of assessing the credibility of a witness’s statement in light of the contents of the original judgment and the evidence duly examined in the original judgment, the lower court’s judgment was clearly erroneous in determining the credibility of the witness’s statement in light of the contents of the original judgment and the evidence duly examined in the original judgment.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the court below or in full view of the results of the examination of evidence at the court below and the results of additional examination conducted until the closing of oral argument at the appellate court, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the judgment of the court below on the ground that the judgment of the court below on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the court below is different from the judgment of the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006; 201Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). Although the defendants asserted the same purport in the court below, the court below asserted to the same effect, while the court below accepted the victim as a witness to hear such statement and there is credibility of such statement.

After the judgment, the Defendants rejected the above assertion.

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, a thorough examination shows that the statement of the victim witness is consistent from the investigative agency to the court below, and the witness G of the trial party shows that the defendants and the injured party are dissatisfied with the witness's statement. The witness G of the trial party is at a distance from the point of time towards his own vehicle for his retirement, and there is a large dog (the opening of the victim's own land).