The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the victim E suffered bodily injury is a part that can be easily controlled compared to other parts, and it is irrelevant to the body of the victim. The victim did not have any situation other than the defendant's attack, and the statement of the victim was sufficiently reliable, and thus the defendant was found not guilty of the injury among the facts charged of this case, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court found the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (i) the victim only made a statement in the police investigation conducted on March 11, 2017, which was the day of the instant crime, that “in the course of preventing the Defendant’s assault, the victim did not have any statement to the effect that the Defendant was satisfing and sating the Defendant’s satisfing; and (ii) on March 29, 2017, the police investigation made a statement to the effect that the Defendant was satisfing and satisfing the Defendant’s satisfing; (iii) but there is no possibility that the Defendant was plucking or breaking the Defendant’s satisfing in the process of fighting the body of the Defendant.”

I think I think.

“The Defendant made a statement to the effect that his memory is not clear as to the fact that he directly injured his fingers by scambling them,” but thereafter, in the court of original instance, the court of original instance saw the Defendant’s scambling of the Defendant’s scambling of the Defendant’s scambling by scambling the Defendant’s s his fingers on the part of the Defendant.

“The statement made to the effect that the statement is more clear and concrete than immediately after the crime. As the time has elapsed, the termination of memory conflicts with the process of the general memory room, the victim’s statement is made.