The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. In full view of the testimony of J, Victim F, and G, etc., of the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal of this case, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge this, and thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows.

B. The direct evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case is only a witness’s testimony to the effect that “at the time of the Defendant’s assault was not memory, but the Defendant reported to the Guro Police Station after the instant assault and designated the Defendant as a perpetrator.” In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it is difficult for the lower court to believe that the above statement is true, the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged in the instant case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1) At the expiration of 36 days from the date of the instant assault, the witness J was identified as a person memorying as a perpetrator, including the Defendant, at the time of reporting only 5-6 photographs shown by the police, and the witness’s statement cannot be ruled out the limitation of memory and the possibility of uncertainty due to the passage of a long time. 2) In addition to those who suffered a yellow wave among the perpetrator’s daily behaviors, the J was completely unable to associate with the other perpetrator’s appearance, including the Defendant.

3) The time period during which the instant assault was committed was late at one hour from a new wall. At the scene of the instant assault, it was not easy to place the perpetrator of the assault in the course of committing the assault, due to the relationship where many of the perpetrators and the victims were able to see it later. 4) The J was the Defendant at the investigative agency.