All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The prosecutor of the scope of the trial at this court prosecuted the defendant A as the crime of injuring the defendant, the crime of assault against the victim A, the crime of injuring the victim G, and the crime of refusing to leave from the victim A. The court below found the defendant B as guilty of the crime of assault against the defendant B and the crime of refusing to leave from the court, and found the defendant B not guilty.

However, since the part of conviction against Defendant B who did not appeal both the prosecutor and Defendant B is separate and confirmed, the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the part of innocence and the part of Defendant B.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, inasmuch as there was a proximate causal relation between Defendant B’s assault and the victim’s injury, and the lower court acquitted Defendant G, on the ground that there was no evidence that the Defendant’s assault and the victim’s injury had been proven, since the victim G complained of symptoms, such as high blood pressure and twice, etc. at the hospital.

B. In light of the statements of the victim B and the witness H of the court below as to the non-guilty portion of the defendant A (the point of injury to B), the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the facts, although the defendant proved that he had inflicted an injury on the victim B by pushing the victim B and destroying it over the floor, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

3. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in the first criminal trial on the assertion of mistake of facts against Defendant B is to be borne by the public prosecutor. The conviction of Defendant 2 ought to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt of guilt against the Defendant, it is also the benefit of the Defendant.