The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant, who misleads the defendant as to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts and the sentencing unfair), did not recognize it once a week, but acquitted the victim of the reason for the injury, and found the defendant guilty of the assault.

The defendant and the victim C have fighting between the two parties.

In the body fighting that has taken place between times, the victim is aware of the most well-known, and the victim is deemed to have taken the face once.

No statement was made, and there was a number of statements.

Since there is no statement, there is no exaggeration in the statement.

A witness E and F stated that the safety of the witness E and F is ambiguous at any time, and that the case occurred between times, so it may not have been aware of the defendant's act of injury.

According to the victim's photograph (Evidence No. 8 pages) and witness E and F's statement, it is clear that the blood transfusion occurred on the left eye of the assault process, and it is difficult to view the body where the body is faced with the inner part of the body, the body where the body is adjacent to the inner part of the body, and the head is likely to occur rapidly in the process of putting each other on the body.

Different from each other, such as the content of the victim's written complaint and the written statement of the police statement made by the victim, whether they were drinking or the victim's losses, etc., are natural in the course of making a statement of direct experience, and the court below held that witness did not regard the face of the victim as a place where the defendant was drinking.

Although the credibility of the victim's statement was rejected on the ground of this point, it is difficult to view that the witness's statement is inconsistent with the victim's statement as a natural result that occurred when the witness did not observe all the acts of the defendant and the victim.

The punishment of the court below (in the amount of 500,000 won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unfluent and unfair.

The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts is as follows.