The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that judged otherwise is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, even though the defendant did not assault the victim as stated in the facts charged.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The victim's statement in a mistake of facts is consistent with the main part of the statement, and there is no unreasonable or contradictory part of the statement in light of the empirical rule, and as long as the motive or reason to make a false statement unfavorable to the defendant is not clearly revealed, the victim's statement in a mistake of facts should not be rejected without permission without any special reason on the ground that there exists a change of the part which appears to be inconsistent with the insignificant part due to the difference in the expression, or the first conclusive statement was changed to a somewhat unclear statement.

(2) The court below's decision on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the court of first instance shall not be reversed on the ground that the first instance court's decision on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the court of first instance is different from the appellate court's decision, or that the first instance court's decision on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the court of first instance is clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the court of first instance and the evidence duly examined by the court of first instance, or that the first instance's decision on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the court of first instance is not clearly erroneous in light of the results of the first instance's examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted until the time of closing of arguments in the appellate court.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). The lower court held that the victim’s legal statement differs from that of the investigative agency, but the Defendant is somewhat different.