The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant is the Pyeongtaek-si apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) around 11:00 on April 16, 2013.

(2) The Defendant, at the management office, did not play the flab of the victim DNA, and even if the Defendant flabed the flab of the said victim’s flab, this constitutes self-defense, since the said victim’s flab was first concealed, thereby defending the Defendant. 2) around April 17, 2013, the Defendant did not look at the victim E’s flabage on the back of the instant apartment site, and on the back of the instant apartment site, the Defendant did not look at the victim E’s flab on the back of the instant apartment site. However, the Defendant flabed the victim’s flab on the front of the instant apartment site, but this constitutes self-defense, since the said victim’s flab was flabed by flab

3) Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant guilty is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. B. The judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 300,000 won is too unreasonable).

2. Determination

A. 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 court’s ruling and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unreasonable to maintain the first instance court’s judgment as to the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument, an appellate court should have determined the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance just because the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance differs from the appellate court’s judgment.