The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The complainant of the grounds for appeal stated that the defendant was sealed by the defendant from the beginning of the instant case.

According to the consistent argument, the description of the injury diagnosis report is consistent with it, the witness K and L's statement that the defendant had failed to witness the scene where the complainant was sealed, the credibility of the testimony of the complainant is deteriorated, and the result of the psychological examination of the complainant and the defendant, etc., the court below acquitted the complainant of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misconception of facts.

2. Examining the evidence of this case in detail in light of the record, and examining the result of the examination is only limited to circumstantial evidence to measure the credibility of the prosecutor’s statement (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do968, Jul. 21, 1987). Based on the reasons stated in its reasoning, it is difficult for the court below to believe that the complainant’s statement and the statement in the investigative agency are consistent with the facts charged of this case, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor are insufficient to recognize the facts charged.

In light of the above, the decision of not guilty is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant is obviously a clerical error of “On the other hand, the complainant is obviously a clerical error of “On the other hand,” and thus, it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.