All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) There was no fact that the injured party et al. or the chest or the lower part of the chest, such as written facts in the facts charged of mistake of facts. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court shall respect the first instance court’s decision as to the credibility of a witness’s statement, unless there are exceptional circumstances to deem that the first instance court clearly erred with regard to the credibility of a witness’s statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). Since there is no legal rule that a witness’s statement in an investigative agency and testimony in the court are different, the latter should be believed if the testimony in the same investigation agency and the testimony in the court are different, even if a criminal facts are acknowledged with belief in another investigative agency’s testimony in the court and the statement in another investigative agency, it belongs to free trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do665, Jan. 25, 2002). Meanwhile, considering the fact that the statement in the criminal procedure should be more serious than the statement in the criminal investigation agency’s basic principle of direct and criminal trial.

Even if the credibility of a statement made by an investigative agency cannot be denied solely on the ground that the statement made by an investigative agency is reversed under the circumstances under which it is not reliable to believe the legal statement, and the credibility of a statement made by an investigative agency may be reinforced by objective evidence or circumstantial facts, together with the reasonableness, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after the statement itself, and existence of interests, and the credibility of a statement made by an investigative agency when determining whether there are circumstances contrary to the facts charged, is recognized.