2. The lower court determined, based on its stated reasoning, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, that the Defendant inflicted an injury on F, on the ground that the lower court was duly admitted and investigated by the evidence alone.

In the end, it is difficult to conclude this part of the facts charged, and judged not guilty.

In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, we cannot accept the prosecutor's assertion of factual mistake.

L at the time of the instant case, who was dispatched to the site after receiving a report at the time of the instant case, was “A witness was assaulted by the victim F rather than assaulted at the time of report at the time of report.”

I have stated.

written in the Statement, “A fact-finding” is written, and “A fact-finding” is written, and “A fact-finding has not been clear and had assaulted in P.I.D. prior to their dispatch.”

I talked.

“The answer was made to the purport that it was “.”

If the Defendant had inflicted an injury on F before L arrives at the above reported site, the F was dispatched to the site upon receiving a report by 112.

L. Although having known the above facts, it was impossible to find such circumstances in the records, and the Defendant inflicted an injury on L. B before the police officer was dispatched to the reported site.

It shall not be readily concluded.

3. If so, the Prosecutor’s appeal is to be made.