The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not look at the victim of mistake of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) 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 for a 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 and attitude of the witness who is going to the witness statement in the open court after being sworn in the presence of a judge, and the penology 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 the credibility of the testimony made by the witness of the first instance court in accordance with the spirit of the principle of direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the testimony made by the witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the testimony made by the witness of the first instance court is substantially maintained in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional