The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant, upon C’s request, had decided D and promised to use C’s phiphones for the number of phiphones, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below in regard to the various circumstances stated by the court below, i.e., C, the prosecution on May 25, 2016, asking the defendant as to whether he/she is unable to seek a philopon.

After that, the defendant had the phone and D had the philophones, and the defendant did so at the R original house.

was made.

At the original house, D entered the place where D was drinking with the Defendant, and the Defendant entered the place where D was identified, and the Defendant first entered the place where D was called, and her phiphone was administered before the I sexual party (Evidence Record 198 pages), and on December 19, 2016, the prosecutor’s reference investigation conducted on December 19, 2016, “I would see that I would be able to ask the Defendant whether I would be able to seek a phiphone.”

After that, there was only a coffee shop under S apartment because the defendant had a telephone.

D The fact that it is late.

In addition, two have been drinking boom in F cafeterias. D.

Before the I sexual party, we administered a philopon in front of the I sexual party.

Whether or not the defendant was on board the vehicle.