The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In full view of the consistent and detailed statements made by victims E, and L, which is the singing room business owner of this case, cannot be deemed to have an objective position, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of the charges in this case based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, despite the fact that the Defendants could be found guilty.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: Defendant A, Defendant C, Defendant B, and Victim E (V, 64 years old) are all members of the police investigation-oriented association called “F.”

At around 23:30 on March 6, 2015, the Defendants: (a) held in Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City “H” singing five times; (b) held that the victim, the president of the FF, demanded disclosure of the details of membership fee account transaction; and (c) Defendant A, while doing so, continued to take a bath on the part of the victim’s ship, following the victim’s neck going beyond the stroke, and the Defendant C was unable to take and move down the victim’s arms going beyond the stroke while taking a bath; and (d) Defendant B was unable to take and move the victim’s arms going beyond the stroke while taking the bath.

As a result, the Defendants jointly inflicted injury on the victims, such as salted tensions and tensions that require approximately 14 days of treatment.

The lower court determined that there were evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, such as the victim, J and K’s respective statements, the results of the detection of the injury, the results of the inspection of the detection of false horses, and the details of 112 reported, but it is difficult for the J to believe in light of the relationship with the victim. The results of the inspection of the detection of false horses are limited to circumstantial evidence, and there is a lack of direct evidence to support the facts charged in the instant case by only K’s statements, 112 reported details, and the injury diagnosis report. The victim’s statement is in conflict with the other objective witness’s statements and M as well as the Defendants.