The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, although the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the second floor election office of the apartment building in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Seoul, had inflicted assault on the victim D around May 7, 2010. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that: (a) each statement made by D in the lower court and the investigative agency as shown in the facts charged of the instant case; (b) the police statement made by D in relation to D, the date and method of assault; and (c) the statement made by D in relation to D in relation to police reporting; and (d) each statement made by E and F in relation to the crime of assault; and (b) there are considerable differences between E and F; and (c) E in the lower court’s statement made in its investigative agency (e.g., the Defendant’s desire to D and d in drinking d’s face once after drinking d’) and clearly stated that D did not have any assault like the facts charged of the instant case; (c) around June 7, 2010, it is difficult to find the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that there was no evidence to prove otherwise on the facts charged of the instant case; and (d) there was no evidence to prove that D did not mention the Defendant on May 7, 2010.

B. In a thorough examination of the reasoning of the lower judgment’s acquittal of the Defendant and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination of not guilty of the facts charged of this case based on the determination of evidence as above is just and acceptable, and new evidence to change the facts charged was submitted in the first instance trial.