The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant inflicted an injury upon the victim by taking care of the victim, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that there were some doubtful circumstances that seem to correspond to the facts charged, including the fact that the victim was issued a medical certificate requiring approximately four weeks of treatment from the F Hospital on August 5, 201 under the name of the victim, including the right side and the mouth, and the victim consistently states the circumstances of the instant case from the investigative agency to this court. However, the lower court continued to state that the victim did not have any fluort before the instant case in the lower court’s court. However, according to the fluoral record, the victim received medical treatment “the victim was unable to be excluded from the possibility that the injury of the victim was inflicted prior to the instant case’s appearance on the ground that it was difficult to view the victim’s fluortly stated in the evidence that “the victim had no fluorously expressed in the fluoralsium,” as alleged in the facts charged by the lower court on July 28, 2011.

B. The circumstances revealed by the court below's decision are based on the witness E's statement in this court.