The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) has no fact of threatening a victim to two saws, as stated in the facts charged.

The defendant was not present at the scene, and the victim was not present at the time.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility in accordance with the spirit of substantial direct deliberation adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, the first instance court’s decision 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’s first instance trial.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial and the result of further examination of evidence conducted by the court of first instance until the closing of pleadings, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance is different from the judgment made by the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). (b) The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal even in the lower court, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of threatening the victim as one of the two parts as stated in the facts charged, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, including the witness D and E’s legal statement.

Upon examining the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence as seen above in light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by mistake as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

The statements in the victim, E, and F police and the original trial are known to the defendant and his wife without permission.