The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the gist of the grounds of appeal (based on factual errors), the crime of this case is reasonable to regard the criminal who committed the crime of this case as the criminal, in light of the following: (a) the police officer having committed the crime of this case as the criminal and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the “defendant”) is clear; (b) the appearance of the criminal as indicated in the victim’s statement and the actual form of the criminal were consistent; and (c) the “the defendant has sufficient time to stop the crime

On the contrary, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that "the defendant cannot be seen as a criminal" and dismissed the prosecutor's request for an attachment order.

2. Determination

A. The key issue 1) In light of the content of the statement made by the victim, it seems obvious that the victim showed the damage of the crime of this case at the time and place indicated in the facts charged of this case. In this case, not whether the victim's statement was credibility or credibility of the victim's statement on whether or not damage was inflicted, but whether or not "the criminal who committed the crime of this case was proved without any reasonable doubt." 2) The victim consistently stated that "the criminal was under the influence of alcohol at the time, and was the first step," and the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time, and the police officer E called "the defendant was the first step," and the dispatched police officer E made a statement that "the victim was called the victim as the criminal defendant at the time," in view of the fact that the police officer F called "the victim was called the victim as the criminal defendant at the time."

However, in light of the overall circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, the prosecutor acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that “it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant committed the instant crime is the Defendant” on various grounds.