The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the summary of the grounds of appeal No. D and F’s statement, although the court below acquitted the victim of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was around September 22, 201, at the time of Ansan-si C 103, and around September 22, 201, the Defendant drinking alcohol from the “Esker” nearby the Defendant’s residence at the lowest of the day, and D had an appraisal about it. As to this, D had an appraisal about the Defendant, the Defendant went into the Defendant’s residence through a visit that was not corrected at the time of the temporary border, and infringed upon the victim’s face, body, etc., and caused the victim’s injury, such as cryth, dys, dys, dys, and stals, etc., which require approximately four weeks of medical treatment.

B. The lower court determined that it is difficult to believe the statements of the victim D and F due to the following reasons, and that there is no other evidence to prove the facts charged of the instant case, and acquitted the victim D and F.

① At the time when the Defendant was assaulted by the victim D, the victim stated that “the Defendant was fluored by fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluor, and fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluort fluor,” but the victim was fluord by flut fluordd