The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant misunderstanding the summary of the grounds for appeal made a coffee before Scerer's coffee, and the victim made a request for money by taking advantage of his/her identity.

The Defendant was only fluoring a victim who embling a hidden tree, and did not intentionally inflict an injury on the victim, and this constitutes a legitimate defense.

Considering the difference between the spirit of substantial direct deliberation and the method of evaluating the credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court’s determination on the argument that the sentencing was unfair, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court.

Except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court by taking account of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of pleadings at the appellate court, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court.

The Defendant argued to the same effect in the lower court.

The court below found credibility in the statement after directly examining the witness.

Based on the judgment of the court below, the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below were admitted as evidence, and the defendant's act cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense.

Unlike the above, there is no special circumstance to deem that the first deliberation judgment was clearly erroneous or that maintaining it as it is is considerably unfair, and in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original court, the judgment of the court below is justified.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

The appellate court's judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing has no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first trial.