The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. On August 21, 2015, around 12:00, the victim sought the face of the defendant first on the H Beauty Roof, and around 12:30 on the same day, the defendant in the above beauty art room D's shoulder from the above beauty art room 12:30 on the same day, but at around 12:30 on the part of the defendant, A was able to take up the defendant's head debt, and was able to take a stop hand, and the defendant suffered an injury requiring two weeks' treatment.

In other words, the defendant suffered damages from A.

B. As above, when the Defendant suffered from an assault and injury from A as to the crime of intimidation, only the Defendant paid the medical expenses incurred from the above injury on August 22, 2015, and did not have the intention of intimidation.

2. Determination

A. In light of the spirit of substantial direct cross-examination adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act as one element of the trial-oriented principle, if there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or if there are exceptional circumstances to deem that maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is considerably unfair, the appellate court shall not reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, around 12:00, around 200, A appeared as a witness of the lower court, and around 20:31, the Defendant’s statement made by the second instance court on the cosmetic head of the second instance court, as found by the lower court.