The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the main facts of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the injury, which is the primary facts charged, even though the F, the proprietor of the restaurant business, and the taxi driver, all of whom were stated as the grounds for innocence, cannot be believed as a person who has a close relationship with the Defendant, and the victim received a written diagnosis of injury at the hospital on the day of the instant case, and thus, the Defendant suffered an injury to the left-hand side. However, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the injury, which is the primary facts charged.

2. On August 31, 2013, around 02:30 on August 31, 2013, the summary of the facts charged is the trial expenses for the following reasons: (a) the Defendant is the victim E who is the customer and the drinking value in front of Ulsan-gu C.

With the floor of hand, violence was committed by the victim, such as the victim's breadm with five strings, and the victim's breadm malmosis was caused by the breadm malmosis requiring approximately three weeks of treatment

3. The judgment of the court below is based on the witness E’s legal statement, the police statement of E, and the written diagnosis of the issuance of G Hospital, which conforms to the case.

E stated in this Court and the police that he saw himself to D's door on the ground that he was unable to receive only the drinking value, and that he saw her to the D's click with his hand.

However, a witness, such as a taxi engineer or the owner of a restaurant around the time of the instant case, testified that the Defendant and E heard the sound disputed, but the Defendant was unable to see E, and that E was a number of witnesses at the time of the instant case, but the witness’s statement that the Defendant considered E was insufficient to submit as evidence.

In addition, F, together with the site of this case, stated that the defendant was not at the time of this case, even though the fact that the defendant did not pay the money and prevented the defendant from stopping the E to do so, he did not leave the job.

Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the statement of E, which the defendant had taken time at one's time, is difficult to believe as it is.

On the other hand, E provides treatment from this Court to the mid-term infection in 2012.