2. Around 11:50 on July 17, 2012, the summary of the facts charged: (a) the Defendant heard the sound from the Victim E who was not well-grounded in the “D” treatment room located in Busan Dong-gu, Busan; (b) and (c) sought approximately 14-day medical treatment from the victim’s head.

3. As to the judgment, the court below rendered a statement that ① E gives a statement that is inconsistent with the police and the court of the court of the original instance on the part of E and the circumstances surrounding the defendant's own time, ② G seated on the back of E statements that "if the defendant and E have seen to go on the back of E, it cannot be seen that the defendant does not come on the back of E," ③ The court of the original instance made a statement that "at the time when the defendant opened and entered the D door, he was caught by the people and got on the back of the door, although he was not aware of what he was he was," and ④ there was no witness in the field of this case, and found the defendant not guilty on the grounds that there is no clear evidence to acknowledge the facts charged of this case.

If the court below reviews the evidence legitimately adopted and examined in detail in light of the records, it is acceptable to accept the court below's decision that acquitted the facts charged of this case on the grounds as stated in its holding, and thus, the prosecutor's assertion of grounds for

4. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is groundless, and thus, Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.