The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which rejected the victim C's statement in the summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) despite credibility, and acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case.

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment of the court below, the defendant, D, investigation agencies of C, and the statement of the court below in each of the court below, it is acknowledged that C, who was followed by the defendant and D, who moved to attract the dog in the field around 20:35 on September 21, 2013, listened to the statement that "whether it is not possible to attract the dog in the field" from the defendant and D, who was followed by the defendant and D, in the field of a dispute, and that it is true that C, which was over the floor of the playground.

However, in addition, in light of his legal testimony attitude, each statement in C's investigation agency and court of the court of the court below, which correspond to C's health stand beyond the sports ground floor of the defendant, seems to be in exaggeration of the fact of damage, and the specific contents of the statement are also lack credibility. The statement in the police statement in E is not only inconsistent with the motive the C's witness in the investigation agency, but also inconsistent with the contents of the statement, it is difficult to believe it as it is because it is doubtful whether C has actually been witnessed in the field of the assault in this case in light of its contents.

Therefore, in this case where there is no direct evidence to prove the facts charged except for the statements of C and E that are difficult to believe as above, the statement of the injury diagnosis is insufficient as evidence and there is no other evidence.

B. According to the purport of the substantial direct examination principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act, in order for the appellate court to reverse the first instance court’s judgment denying the credibility of the witness statement of the first instance court, the first instance court’s judgment, in principle, is clearly erroneous, or when compiling the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted in the appellate court.