The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts as to the acquittal portion) can sufficiently recognize the defendant's head at one time.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

2. As stated in the judgment of the court below, the defendant recognized the fact that he saw the victim's fat, as stated in the judgment of the court below, but there is a statement at C's investigative agency and the court of the court below that the victim's head was not found in a consistent manner with the investigation agency, and denied this part of the facts charged.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and records duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., C, the course that the defendant was boarding the taxi at the time of the case at the court of original instance; the defendant was forced to get off the taxi at the time of the case at the time of the case at the court of original instance; but the defendant was not allowed to pay a taxi fee; at the time, the defendant testified in detail as to the fact that he did not escape; however, the defendant was unable to make a detailed statement as to how he was faced with the defendant; furthermore, unlike the investigative agency's statement, he did not have any consistency in the statement, such as the defendant's statement that the head was the same as that of the defendant at several times; C did not have any history of medical treatment or treatment; C's report on the occurrence of the case immediately after the arrival of the police at the scene at the time of the case at the court of original instance; and even on the investigation report prepared following it, C did not have any content that "C made a statement that he was head at the time of the defendant's taxi at the court at the time."