The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence related to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), the court below acquitted the defendant on the facts charged, although it should be sufficiently recognized that the injury of the victim was caused by the defendant's assault. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. On October 25, 2013, at around 07:50 on October 25, 2013, the Defendant, at the office of the Defendant located on the first floor of the building of the management office of the shooting range located in the area G located in F, the Defendant: (a) committed assault with the victim by setting bomb with bomb; (b) booming the body with the victim; and (c) caused the victim to commit assault by booming the victim; and (d) caused the victim to undergo approximately two weeks of medical treatment.

B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) there is no clear statement that the Defendant intentionally assaulted the victim; (b) there is only the statement that the Defendant continued to have the victim go beyond the floor by making the ebbbbbbbage, etc., even in the case where the Defendant tried to go beyond the floor while using the ebbage, etc.; (c) the victim submitted a complaint on March 19, 2014 after four months from the filing of a warning letter on November 19, 2013; (d) the victim appears to have visited the hospital at the defense level rather than having been treated with special inconvenience; and (v) the victim was in the past, not the final diagnosis even with respect to the diagnosis letter, and the clinical presumption and the fact that it was impossible to deem the victim to have suffered injury on the ground that the Defendant intentionally exceeded or was not guilty of the facts charged.

(c)

The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in the criminal trial for the above decision is the prosecutor.