The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is consistent with the statement that the victim was assaulted by the defendant, and in light of the F’s statement about the situation before and after the time of the case, it is recognized that the defendant inflicted an injury upon the victim’s face by drinking, but the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case. In other words, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On September 28, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 00:10 on September 28, 2013, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (b) around 5, 2013, the victim E and the victim E were suffering from a dispute with the victim; and (c) around 2 weeks at once, the victim was suffering from drinking.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to recognize the facts charged of the instant case in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, despite the victim and F’s respective opinions and opinions, which correspond to the facts charged of the instant case.

① At the time of the police investigation, the victim stated that he was stuffed in the studio room room room by the Defendant, and that G and F were studio in order to keep the studio in the Defendant’s room room. It is not consistent with the statement by stating that G and F were studio in this court, and that G and F were studio in the studio room room, and most of the most of them did not witness that G and F were in the studio room room room room or that the Defendant was about to keep the studio.

② Rather, G and F stated that the Defendant and the victim were the victim, and the victim was the time when the head was sealed.