The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant, at the time of appeal, was unable to associate himself with alcohol, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, thereby inflicting an injury on the victim at the time.

2. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly unreasonable in full view of the results of the first instance examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument in the appellate court, unless there are exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is remarkably unfair, the appellate court shall not reverse the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20111Do5313).

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do12112, Aug. 20, 2009). In this case, there seems to be no special circumstance to deem that the lower court’s determination on the credibility of each of the statements by the witnesses of the lower court was clearly erroneous. The following statements by the witnesses of the lower court, i.e., the victim E was unable to memory the situation immediately after the case in the lower court’s court, but the occurrence of the case occurred thereafter.