The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, even though the defendant recognized the fact that he assaulted the victim as stated in the facts charged, is improper.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was the owner of the DNA store located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and committed assault against the victim, on November 19, 201, at around 02:00, the Defendant paid for the cost of cleaning expenses due to the shocking of food by E and F, while he was in charge of the payment of the cost of cleaning expenses due to the shocking of the shock. The Defendant used the victim’s chest E (39 years of age) in hand, bat off the bat, fat off the bat, and fat off the bats of the victim by hand.

B. The court below acknowledged as a result of the record: (1) the defendant stated that there was no assault against E by the investigative agency up to the court below's ex officio; (2) the police officer stated that F, who was at the scene of female friendly district of E, did not know of the fact that the defendant and E did not assault E; (3) in the court of the court of the court below, the defendant stated that he did not memory of the fact that the defendant committed assault against E; and (4) in the court of the court of the court below, Eul stated that he did not merely stored assault against the defendant by any means; and (3) at the time of the court of the court below, the defendant did not have any statement about the specific circumstances, etc. although the investigative agency stated that the defendant committed assault as stated in the facts charged, G, who was at the main point operated by the defendant at the time, did not have any dispute between the defendant and the police officer, and did not have any specific dispute over E, such as laundry.