The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged (the point of injury to the victim C) on the ground of the judgment, even though the defendant sufficiently recognized that he had inflicted an injury on the victim C when he was in front of the time when he was in front of the time when he was in front

2. On April 14, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 15:25, the summary of this part of the facts charged was at around F and F in the “E cafeteria” located in the permanent city of permanent residence D on April 14, 2015; (b) the victim C(49 years of age) attempted to fight; (c) the victim C was pushed back to the floor by pushing the victim C; and (d) the victim C’s side was tight back to the floor; and (c) the victim C’s face was able to be taken by drinking

Accordingly, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim C (hereinafter “victim”) in order to cause the victim C (hereinafter “victim”) to fall in front of the number of days of treatment.

3. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on evidence with probative value that makes a judge feel true enough to have no reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant's conviction, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do4305, Feb. 25, 200). The court below stated in the court below that the victim stated that "the victim was absent as soon as he was drinking by the defendant," but the court below stated that "the victim was "I want to drink it once prior to the day of this case" in the court of the court below. The victim made a statement to the effect that "I want to drink it as soon as possible" is different from the victim's statement in the investigative agency as well as the victim's statement at all, but it is inconsistent with the victim's statement in the court.