The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although the defendant suffered injury by asking the injured party's fingers as shown in the facts charged, and the court below acquitted the defendant, since the court below acquitted the defendant, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Facts charged;

A. At around 13:45 on May 21, 2019, the injured Defendant: (a) followed the victim D(64 years of age) and following the operation of the “C” restaurant located in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu; and (b) took a bath for the victim to “the victim satisfing, a single drinking house,” and (c) the victim satisfing the victim’s sat with the defect that is the match, and satisfing the victim’s satch, and satching the victim’s right-hand hand to stop the victim’s right-hand hand, thereby making it difficult for the victim to know the number of treatment days.

B. The defendant with special violence is above A.

At the same place on the same day as the same as the paragraph, the victim D abused the victim's disease, which is a dangerous object that the victim contained the defendant in the back of the smuggling, and assaulted the victim.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the facts charged in the instant case constituted a case where there is no proof of crime. Its primary purpose is that E’s statement at the time of the instant case was insufficient to be credibility, and the police officer’s statement sent to D or the site of the instant case was insufficient, and the photograph or bodily injury diagnosis that taken D’s fingers or fingers after the instant case was caused by the Defendant’s fingers.

It can not be readily concluded that a soldier or a veteran has committed a crime, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.

B. The establishment of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to such a degree that is not likely to have any reasonable doubt, and thus, the prosecutor’s conviction is likely to lead to such conviction.