2. The lower court determined that the instant facts charged were proven beyond a reasonable doubt only by the evidence presented by the prosecutor.

For reasons that it cannot be seen, the defendant was acquitted.

Unless there exist special circumstances, such as whether a doctor is sufficient to treat a patient when treating him/her, matters to be determined by a doctor with expert knowledge that requires hospital treatment, and where a patient under the direction of a doctor receives hospital treatment, the patient deceivings the doctor by means of exaggeration of symptoms, false information, etc. to the extent that the doctor makes the decision, or received unnecessary hospital treatment in collusion with the doctor, etc., he/she cannot be held liable for the suitability of hospital treatment for the patient.

Although the defendant had sufficient medical treatment only due to hospital treatment or extremely short-term hospital treatment, it is not enough to recognize this only with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, as to whether the defendant neglected the symptoms to the extent that the decision of the doctor was correct, or that the doctor was required to be treated for a long time, or whether the defendant received unnecessary hospital treatment in collusion with the doctor.

The judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed as there is no reason.