The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim’s investigative agency and the court below’s statement are consistent, and in the case of cageage cages suffered by the victim, there are cases where the patients feel pains after 2-3 weeks or more and the hospital was found, credibility is found in the victim’s statement.

B. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the charge of injuring the defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The investigative agency and the statement of the court below in the court below are hard to believe in light of the defendant and F's respective legal statements in the court below, and there is no other evidence to prove that the victim suffered bodily injury, such as cage cages, etc. due to the defendant's assault, and they were acquitted of the charges of this case

B. 1) The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial, and the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to make a judge not to have reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined as the defendant's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010). 2) In light of the above legal principles, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the facts charged in this case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to support this, and thus, the court below is not guilty on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the facts charged in this case, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning.