All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendants did not commit an injury by assaulting the victim as stated in the judgment below.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (a fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On the grounds of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of the testimony of the witness at the first instance trial, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness at the first instance trial was clearly erroneous in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, in light of the purport and spirit of the substantial direct deliberation principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to view the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance trial and the result of an additional examination of evidence up to the closing of the appellate trial, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the grounds that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is different from the appellate court’s judgment, except in exceptional cases where it is deemed that it is significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial.

In particular, in a case where the first instance judgment rejecting the credibility of the witness’s statement supporting the facts charged is followed, it should be said that, in light of the principle of presumption of innocence and the principle of the burden of proof of criminal case, sufficient and acceptable circumstances arise, and where there are sufficient and acceptable circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14065, Mar. 25, 2010). 2), in light of the above legal principles, the health unit and the Defendants asserted the same purport at the lower court, and the lower court was at the scene of victim E and at the time.

After examining G, H, I, J, and K as a witness, and directly reporting and observing the form and attitude of making a statement at the time of making a statement, consistency of the statement, clarity, and the sensity of the statement;