The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

In light of the fact that the summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) E consistently stated that the defendant was on the drinking time, and that the entry of the injury diagnosis report, etc. exceeds the credibility of the above statement, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, even though the defendant was found to have inflicted an injury on E, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

Judgment

The court below asserts that the following circumstances acknowledged as a result of the record are purported to the effect that the defendant consistently stated that there was no injury to the defendant's face, and that there was only a wound on the part of the defendant's entrance in the process of exceeding the F for drinking, and that E was in contact with the defendant, F, and that the defendant was in contact with the defendant's face at the restaurant, and that the defendant was in contact with F and B, and that the defendant was in contact with the defendant's face at the time of drinking, and that the defendant was in line with F and B, and that the defendant was in line with F and B, and that the defendant was in line with F and B, and that the defendant was in line with the defendant's statement to the effect that the defendant was in line with the defendant's body at the time of drinking, and that the defendant's statement to the effect that the defendant did not appear in line with G. The defendant's statement to the effect that the defendant was in line with F and H's statement to the effect that the defendant was in line with the defendant's body.