The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) is that the Defendant, after erroneously paying the charges by means of transportation cards for elementary school students, was flicking the driver’s seat protection partitions to ask questions to the victim as to the method of exchanging them with adult transportation cards, and there is no 3 times a week-friendly manner as indicated in the facts charged, and the victim merely recorded it in the course of protesting against the Defendant’s abusive and rebuttal, and there was no intention to obstruct the victim’s business.

2. Determination

A. In light of the relevant legal principles and the public trial-oriented principle, comprehensively considering the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court’s judgment as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance, unless there are exceptional cases deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14409, Feb. 25, 2010).

In the instant case, the Defendant argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by taking account of the evidence in its judgment.

The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial court (i.e., the victim's statements in investigation agencies and the court) are generally specific and consistent in the main parts, and the credibility is recognized in the explanation of circumstances, and (ii) the witness witness also appeared in the court of original instance that the defendant did not have been able to keep the driver's seat protection partitions several times in the court of original instance, and there is no circumstance that H did not make a false statement against the defendant, and (iii) the defendant is recorded in CCTV that took the bus inside the court of original instance.