2. Determination:

A. The lower court consistently confirmed the face of the Defendant A from the investigative agency to the lower court, but did not view the Defendant’s face.

(2) The statement was made by the Defendant on the day of the instant case, and the Defendant consistently entered the body of the Defendant, on the grounds that: (a) the person, who was under clothes to be examined by the Defendant as the perpetrator, took the body of the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant, who was under the body of the Defendant, was under the body of the Defendant.

In light of the fact that the defendant, at the time of the case, seems to have been suffering from chromosomes, and the possibility that other persons assaulted the victim could not be ruled out, the credibility is insufficient for the victim's statement that the defendant was designated as the perpetrator, in light of the fact that there were many other persons at the time of the case.

In light of the facts charged against the defendant, it was determined that there is no proof of crime.

B. Examining the above judgment of the court below closely in light of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.