The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in this case even though he did not prices the part of the victim's buckbucks, or was unilaterally abused by the victim's bucks with buckbucks, or he did not cover the victim's bucks and face; and (b) the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

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 exist extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial and the result of the further examination of evidence conducted by the time the appellate court final and conclusive, 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 appellate court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). (b) The lower court directly reported and observed the type, attitude, and consistency of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court after directly examining D and E and E and F, who are witnesses, as witnesses, and directly examining them as witnesses, and then having credibility of the statement made by the said witness.

The decision was determined.

In the statement of the victim, there are parts that are not partially inconsistent with the statement made by the investigative agency, but the victim stated in the police investigation that the defendant had completed his back head on his hand from the police investigation, but in the court of original instance, the defendant is head.