The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the following circumstances, i.e., the victim B’s statement was somewhat different as to whether the Defendant first saw flaps or when the victim saw flaps, and the content of the statement is specific and consistent except for that part, and each statement of the Defendant’s driver and the owner of the “Nan shop” where the instant case occurred is insufficient to conceal the credibility of the victim’s statement, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, on a different premise, and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In a case where the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of unfair sentencing was accepted and the acquittal portion of the lower judgment is found guilty, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, probation, and 80 hours community service order) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The judgment of the court below held that the victim B made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below that the defendant or the defendant and theO first met with the wind of the victim that he did bomb, but it is hard to believe the victim's statement as it is when considering the state of drinking at the time of witness and the victim, and that the witness and the victim did not look at the situation in detail at the time, or that at least the defendant did not bomb with the victim's bomb, and this part of the facts charged is "the victim bomb, while the victim b bombed the victim's bomb," and thus, "the defendant first fell in the process of bombing the victim's bomb, during the process of opposing it," the victim's statement and the victim's statement.