The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant did not have assaulted the victim as stated in paragraph (1) of the facts charged, and Paragraph (2) of the facts charged did not exercise a tangible power that can be seen as assault, or self-defense or legitimate act, since the Defendant’s mother did not exercise a physical power that could be seen as assault, inasmuch as the Defendant’s mother did not talk with the victim while she talked with the victim, and the Defendant was able to resist

(b) The imposition of a fine of 1,500,000 won in the middle of the sentencing;

2. Determination

A. In the trial process of the appellate court’s determination of mistake of facts, there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence, and the first instance court’s determination of evidence was clearly erroneous.

In a case where there is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., the judgment on fact-finding in the first instance court should not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court. The lower court, in the case of paragraph (1) of the facts charged, may recognize the credibility of the witness’s statement in the case of paragraph (1) of the facts charged, and in the case of paragraph (2) of the facts charged, the lower court rejected all the Defendant’s arguments, taking into account the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning

Examining the above judgment of the court below in a thorough comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous.

There is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

However, with respect to CCTV images, the lower court.