The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not interfere with the victim’s operation of the restaurant by force, as stated in the instant facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a conviction, which erred by misunderstanding the facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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 in light of the evidence examination conducted by the first instance court, unless there are exceptional cases where it is clearly 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 significantly unfair, the appellate court should not reverse the first instance court’s determination on the grounds that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). The Defendant and defense counsel asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal by the lower court, and the lower court acknowledged the credibility of a statement made by the victim C and E evidence.

It is difficult to find exceptional circumstances to deem that the above testimony does not violate specific and mutually, thus making it difficult to find that the determination of the credibility of the statement by the court of first instance is clearly erroneous or that it is considerably unfair to maintain the judgment by the court of first instance.

In addition, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below including the above testimony, the defendant was weak.