The dismissal part of the above public prosecution in this case where the prosecutor filed an appeal on the ground of mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below was already finalized, and only the part of the judgment of the court below is subject to this court's

2. In full view of the following facts: (a) the victim’s statement at the police station is specific; and (b) the victim’s statement at the police station and the victim’s statement at E and G are consistent with the victim’s statement, despite the fact that the victim’s statement can sufficiently be recognized as credibility, the court below acquitted the victim on the ground that the victim’s statement has no credibility without reasonable grounds; (c) the court below erred by

3. The lower court consistently asserted the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant, from the investigation stage to the court, that is, the victim was injured in the process of cutting down and salping the Defendant’s breath, and the witness G consistently, similar to the Defendant’s assertion, consistently carried the Defendant’s bridge from the investigation stage to the court, and the Defendant “belling”

b)such words as "," and intended to spread the victim;

If we look at the statement (not more than 30 pages of investigation records, not more than 200 pages of trial records) the victim's statement alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the victim inflicted an injury on the victim. Even if the victim's act was caused by the defendant's act, it is insufficient to recognize the victim's intentional act of assault or injury as being occurred in the process of spreading breathing the victim's breath, and it is different.