The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant case of mistake of facts, the victim, who was in a state of detention at the time of the instant case of mistake of facts, has lost his center and left away from the stairs. At the time, the Defendant did not assault the victim as stated in the instant facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by reliance on the statements of the victim with no credibility. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant reflects on the unreasonable sentencing, suffers from high blood pressure with urology and economic difficulties, etc., the punishment of the lower judgment (basic fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness in the first instance trial based on the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the principle of court-oriented trial, the appellate court should not reverse the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness in the first instance trial on the ground that there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court clearly erred in the determination of the credibility of a statement made by a witness in the first instance in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or that additional evidence examination conducted by the first instance court until the date of closing of arguments in the appellate trial, unless it is acknowledged that maintaining the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness in the first instance is remarkably unfair. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).