Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts.

2. The lower court determined that the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to view that the Defendant’s exercise of violence as stated in the facts charged was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquitted the Defendant pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that: (a) the statement of the lower court is inconsistent with the facts charged in the instant case; (b) it is difficult to trust the F’s statement that the sound occurred in the process meeting the H; and (c) it is difficult to readily understand that the CCTV video was not preserved even though the police officer was an assaulted in the earth area.

The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial shall be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to form such a conviction, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant and the defendant.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below's fact-finding and decision is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts that affected the judgment, as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor, in light of the above legal principles. In light of the above legal principles, we examine the evidence of this case in detail in light of records.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.