Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged, and the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court, on July 6, 2015, found that E was present at the office of the Association of Persons with Disabilities on the ground that it is highly probable that the Defendant, who observed a condition where E’s face was ushel and holeed, could have caused the face to E, and thus, it is difficult to believe E’s statement that he was not asked from the Defendant as to the face status, and that he was hospitalized at the hospital, and that E was not present at the office for five days was exposed to other members including the Defendant.

On the basis of the possibility that the degree of injury could not be ruled out by talking about the fact that he or she did not satise, he or she could not be found guilty of the facts charged, and on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the guilty of the facts charged other than the E’s statement, the court acquitted

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and its reasoning, the above judgment of the court below is just.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion that the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in mistake is without merit.

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