폭행
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is specific and consistent, there is a reason to understand the situation that the victim did not report the instant case to the police at the time, and the defendant's assertion that the defendant was in contact with the victim without any physical contact even though he was in contact with the victim is difficult due to circumstances, and thus, the court below rejected the credibility of the victim's statement that the defendant was in contact with the defendant, and acquitted the defendant of the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. (1) The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that ① the Defendant reported to the police that the Defendant was assaulted against C, ② the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant was assaulted against C, and the Defendant’s remaining evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone alone was insufficient to acknowledge the instant charges. In so doing, the lower court rejected the credibility of C’s statement that the Defendant was assaulted against C, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant reported to the police that the Defendant was assaulted against C; (b) the Defendant was able to prevent the transit bus from getting on and off the transit bus and reported to the police; and (c) the Defendant toldd that other passengers in the transit bus were assaulted by C while other passengers in the transit bus were heard; and (d) the Defendant did not speak that he was faced with C by the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant was not guilty.
(2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the above circumstances revealed by the court below, namely, ① the defendant stated in the investigative agency that “the defendant first gets head debt,” and the court of the court below stated that “the male who was at the end of the dispute with the defendant was “the defendant first put in the court of the court of the court below,” and that “the person who was at the end of the dispute with the defendant was “the person who was at the end of the court of the court below,” and that the person was