The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal D is consistent so far as the defendant first moves into and out of the main corridor;

In accordance with the proposal, D’s statement that “The face of D was sold first, while locked to its corridor or dispute,” and immediately after the instant case, D’s inner bridge was displayed, sold, and holeed on the just, and D’s statement to D’s investigative agency is sufficiently reliable in view of the fact that D’s injury, such as the bones of the bones, etc., for about three weeks of treatment, was inflicted.

On the other hand, although the defendant denies the fact that he did not fight the body from the outer corridor floor of the main place, the defendant's statement cannot be believed when considering the injury, circumstance of the case, etc.

H is merely a witness after the case, and G cannot believe that the statement was made in consideration of the kind of relationship with the defendant, injury inflicted upon D, etc.

Therefore, the statement of the defendant's legal counsel and corresponding witness cannot be believed without permission, while the facts charged in this case can be sufficiently recognized based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case, which erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts - Public prosecutor has applied for the amendment of a bill of indictment with the content that the crime of injury was committed in the trial of the party, and that the defendant received the head on the face of D as a preliminary charge, and this court permitted it.

(1) The summary of the facts charged by the State is that the Defendant was the Secretary-General, and that there was no good link between D and D with which C was a member.

On July 17, 2015, around 01:10, the Defendant served in the “F” located in Heung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E (hereinafter referred to as the “instant main point”), and served as a vision on the ground that the Defendant was against the following: