The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the statements of the victims, the statements of witnesses I, J, etc., and the statements of the medical certificate, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendants, despite the fact that the defendants assaulted the victims and inflicted bodily injury, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the rules of evidence.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or in exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is significantly unfair considering the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court’s determination on the grounds that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).

In light of the above legal principles, in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below's rejection of credibility of each of the statements in the victim G, H, witness I and the investigative agency in the court of the court below and each of the statements in the investigation agency by the victim G, H, I, and J, based on the circumstances in its reasoning, is considerably unfair or there are no special circumstances to deem that such a judgment was clearly erroneous. Thus, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and in addition, G is a police officer at the time.