The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is considerably specific and consistent with the victim’s statement, and the witness F, also, was fighting the Defendant and the victim’s body

In light of the fact that the witness I's statement that the defendant did not assault the victim, and that the witness I's statement that the defendant did not assault the victim falls short of credibility because it is not consistent, the judgment of the court below which judged it differently and found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. On May 16, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at around 11:50 on May 16, 2016, the gist of the facts charged is that the victimized person was a matter of the parking fee fee of the victim E (the remaining, the age of 24) and the Maurel, and that the victim was in dispute with the Defendant.

The part of the victim’s dubage was cut into “a dubing dubling,” and the part of the victim’s dubling was assessed once.

Accordingly, the defendant committed violence against the victim's body.

3. As evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, there are statements by the victim, photographs, and 112 reported details, etc.

In light of the fact that the statement of the victim is considerably specific and consistent, the victim was faced with the defendant immediately after the occurrence of the case, and reported to the police, it is true that there is a strong doubt that the defendant does not assault the victim, such as the facts charged.

However, the witness F, which can be said to be relatively objective because of the lack of friendship with both the Defendant and the victim, states to the effect that “The scene was observed from the beginning of physical fighting, and the Defendant did not have any fact when she satisfing or satisfing the victim’s fat.” (Although F appears to have been in the victim’s counter-constition due to severe humiliation from the victim at the time, the credibility of the statement cannot be rejected solely on such circumstance). In light of the foregoing F’s statement, it is difficult to deny the credibility of the statement.