The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. On December 13, 2013, the summary of the facts charged was jointly with the victim E (the age of 45) who had drinking alcohol from the "Durijup" in the Namyang-si, Namyang-si on December 13, 2013.

The above-mentioned person who is not aware of the victim's name shall take the victim's face at a time and take the victim's face out of the above heading house, and the defendant took the victim's face by combining it.

As a result, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim, including No. 7 and No. 8 on the left-hand side in need of medical treatment for about five weeks in collaboration with the person who was not the victim of his name.

2. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) and the statement of the police statement, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case (the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by finding the Defendant not guilty. (The court below made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant did not see the victim’s face value,” or “the Defendant did not see the victim’s face value,” in the court below decision.

3. Determination

A. The court below held that ① the overall purport of the E’s statement “I would know whether they were faced to one person having no mind at the time,” ② E appears to be unable to properly memory the situation at the time of assault in the state of drinking, ③ E appears to be based on the horses of F, and the F did not properly witness the Defendant’s assault site at the time, ④ In other words, F was a police station, and the two persons were assaulted by two male names at the time of the police.” The court stated that “I used the E and two male names next to it.” In the court, the two male names were used, and the E used the assault site at the time.”