The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant continued to leave the victim’s face more than several times, such as the facts charged, and has taken place the victim’s body by drinking and drinking, and the causal relationship between the Defendant’s assault and the victim’s injury is recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the primary charges of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was around 02:00 on June 30, 2013, the Defendant, along with the same kind of friendship group with the victim E (the age of 43) in front of the D cafeteria in Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do. Around 02:0, the Defendant: (a) had a meeting of friendship with the Defendant; (b) had been doing camping; and (c) the victim had a good door to the Defendant; (d) caused the victim by misunderstanding that the victim had come to a meeting of friendship with the Defendant; (b) had her face of the victim by drinking son, her children, and following the victim, etc., who suffered from the victim, and had continued to take part in the body of the victim due to drinking and salking; (c) had the victim taken part in a meeting of approximately two weeks on the left-hand left-hand side of 1 (Additional diagnosis No. 31), No. 31), 2 (32) infant salking and other wound containers, and salkinc.

B. The lower court’s determination is as follows: ① First, the victim’s statement was made that G and H were when the victim was exposed to the victim’s face due to drinking, and it is difficult to accept the victim’s statement because it was different from the witness’s statement; ② the Defendant stated that the victim was more than two or three times when the victim was faced with the victim’s face due to drinking, thereby complying with some of the facts charged. However, it is urgent to think that the Defendant should not be able to report the victim’s face when the victim was faced with the victim’s face, and how the Defendant was at the time.