The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) by the prosecutor, the defendant could be found to have inflicted an injury on the victim, but the court below acquitted the victim of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On September 27, 2018, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone insufficient to recognize that the Defendant committed assault against the victim, and that the Defendant was not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the ground that it was revealed that the victim was suffering from the “(s) Hebenummden” on the part of the Defendant prior to this case, on the grounds that the statement by the victim is unclear, and that the fact finding that the victim was suffering from the “(s) Hebenummden” in the instant case, as a result of the fact finding about the hospital issuing the medical certificate, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. 1) In a criminal trial, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in the criminal trial, and the finding of guilt must be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to have a judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to establish such a conviction, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest in light of the above legal principles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do4305, Feb. 25, 2000). If we look at the above circumstances that the court below held, and H, a witness, in the criminal investigation agency and the court of the court of the court below, stated that "I did not see that the defendant was liable for losses to the victim, or that I did not see that he was a victim's losses," the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified.