According to the victim E's statement and the statement of injury diagnosis, although the defendant could fully recognize the fact that the victim has inflicted assault and inflicted bodily injury as stated in the facts charged, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

Judgment

The lower court determined that it is difficult to believe the E’s statement as it is, and there was no other evidence to prove the facts charged, on the grounds of the following circumstances: (a) in the lower court’s trial, the witness F and G revealed to the effect that “the Defendant did not see the appearance of the chest part of E, and the Defendant and E were able to capture the microphones; and (b) the Defendant and E were able to see it later when they were able to use the ditches.”

In addition to the above circumstances determined by the court below, E’s statement that the witness J also made a statement to the same purport as F and G, which are witnesses of the court below, is insufficient to believe that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt only with the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. In addition, E’s statement that the defendant suffered from bodily injury by destroying the chest part of his chest, is insufficient to believe that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the court below that acquitted the defendant with the same purport is just, and there is no error of mistake as alleged by the prosecutor.

In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.