The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding the facts, merely carried the victim’s shoulder, did not look at the victim’s chest.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and forty hours of order to attend a course) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the judgment of the first instance court and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, the first instance court clearly erred in the determination of the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the judgment of the first instance court and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court.

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 the additional examination of evidence by the time the appellate trial is final and conclusive, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the 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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). 2) The lower court found the victimized person guilty of the facts charged in the instant case by adopting the legal statement made by the witness E (tentative name) as evidence.

However, in light of the evidence duly examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination on the credibility of the witness E’s legal statement was clearly erroneous in light of the evidence duly examined by the lower court.

The lower court’s judgment on the credibility of a witness E’s statement is difficult to deem that there are special circumstances or that maintaining the lower court’s judgment is considerably unfair.