The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not assault the victim on November 14, 2014 and on the 15th of the same month.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining the credibility of a statement after the first instance court proceeded with the witness examination procedure in the criminal trial procedure as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the credibility of the statement should be assessed by taking into account all the circumstances that are difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, such as the appearance, attitude, penology, and penology of the statement itself, whether it conforms to the rationality, logic, appearance, or rule of experience, or physical evidence or third party’s statement, and whether it conforms to the witness examination protocol, which is open to the public court after being sworn in the presence of a judge.

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 the intrinsic 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 such difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s purport and spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, it is obvious that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous in light of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the evidence duly examined by the court of first instance until the closing