The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant was not guilty of assaulting the victim.

The facts reported by the defendant are not false.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, 1) In a case where a witness’s statement, including the victim of assault, is mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without permission, unless there exist any separate and reliable evidence to deem that it is objectively reliable (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do362, Apr. 15, 2005). In a criminal trial proceeding where the first instance court proceeds in the witness examination procedure and then determine the credibility of the statement, not only is it consistent with the reasonableness, logic, inconsistency, or empirical rule of the content itself, but also conforms with evidence or third party’s statement in the open court after taking an oath before a judge, but also it should be evaluated whether there is credibility by directly observing various circumstances that make it difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, such as the appearance, attitude, and penation of the statement, etc.

On the other hand, the appellate court's determination of credibility of the statement made by the witness in 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, attitude, and statement of the witness at the time of the statement that can be considered one of the most important factors in determining credibility of the statement can not be reflected in the evaluation of credibility.

Considering the purport and spirit of the substantial direct deliberation principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluation of credibility, the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court.