The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court rejected the victim’s statement on the ground that the witness’s statement in an investigative agency is not consistent with the witness’s statement and the legal statement are different from that of the investigative agency, and that the victim’s statement is not consistent, among the facts charged in the instant case, acquitted the Defendant of the part of the charge that the Defendant was on the part of the victim using beer who was dangerous goods.

2. In light of the fact that the witness made a statement that all the defendants did not see the appearance of assault against beer and beer, as stated in the judgment of the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the defendant committed assault against beer and beer, a dangerous object, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant committed assault against the victim.

In light of the circumstances indicated in its holding, the court below is justified in finding the Defendant not guilty of the charge of using beer who is a dangerous object among the facts charged in the instant case, and it cannot be said that there was an error by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The prosecutor's assertion of mistake is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.