The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant: (a) opened a door to enter the door; (b) did not intrude into the residence without the consent of the victim; (c) thrown-phones of the victim; (d) did not put the victim on the bridge; and (d) did not assault the victim by drinking in the vicinity of the elevator.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted each of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. When considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance 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 a statement made by a witness of the first instance in light of the evidence examination conducted by the first instance court and the evidence examination conducted by the first instance court, the first instance court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012; 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). The lower court also asserted the same in light of the following: (a) there is no special circumstance to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is obviously and the victim; (b).