The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant of mistake of facts did not assault D as stated in the facts charged of this case, and the statement of D, etc. is not reliable, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

Even if the Defendant assaulted D

This is a minor assault to the extent that D does not open.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In determining the credibility of a statement after the first instance court proceeded with the witness examination procedure, the first instance court’s legal doctrine as to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts must consider all the circumstances that are difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, including the appearance and attitude of the witness who is going to make a statement in the open court after being sworn in the presence of a judge, and the appearance and attitude of the witness who is going to make a statement in the witness examination protocol, and the penance of the statement.

On the other hand, the appellate court's determination of credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court under the current Criminal Procedure Act is based on the records including the witness examination protocol in principle, so it has an essential limitation that the appearance and attitude of the witness at the time of the statement that can be considered one of the most important elements in determining credibility of the statement can not be reflected in the evaluation of credibility.

Considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility, there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous, or until the date of closing argument in the appellate court, in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court.