The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court rejected the credibility of the grounds for appeal and acquitted the victim of a special assault without any particular circumstance despite the existence of specific and consistent statements and circumstantial evidence supporting the circumstances at the time.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and rendering a judgment.

2. The court below held that direct evidence consistent with the facts charged of special assault only has the victim's investigative agency and this court's statement that the defendant was at the time of the victim's injury due to beer's disease. In other words, E, the main shop of "D", i.e., from this court to the beginning of the situation at the time, appears from the beginning that the defendant was not at the time. While E, in the written statement prepared at the police stage, he also sought strong punishment against the defendant, he did not mention that he was at the time of the defendant's injury due to beer's disease, and it is difficult to find the reason for the defendant to make a false statement for the victim as the victim of the crime of obstruction of duty caused by the defendant as the victim of the crime of obstruction of duty, and it is difficult to support the victim's statement, but it is difficult to clearly distinguish the victim's left side as well as to clearly identify the victim's situation at the time of being called out by the police officer at the time of the above interview.