The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Although the defendant did not assault the victim as stated in the facts charged, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the basis of the victim C and witness H's statements as well as the credibility of his statement in an open relation with the defendant, although the defendant did not assault the victim as stated in the facts charged. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio. According to the records of this case, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspension of execution on June 28, 2018 by this court for a violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 17, 2019. The crime of violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act and the crime of assault in this case was related to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should have been sentenced to punishment after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment by taking into account equity with the case where the judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the judgment

On the other hand, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. In light of the principle of court-oriented trials, etc., comprehensively considering the results of the examination of evidence conducted in the first instance and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court’s decision as to the credibility of the statement made by a witness in the first instance, unless there are exceptional cases deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance court’s decision on the credibility of the statement made by a witness in the first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14409, Feb. 25, 2010). In addition, the witness’s statement in