The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In a judgment, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10096 Decided June 25, 2009, etc.). The court below held that "When the defendant avoided the same location as D and D met at the time of the instant case and followed D and followed D by a telephone to find their work, it was difficult to view that the defendant was not guilty of the facts charged by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) it was hard to see that D’s price on the left side of the instant case, and she was well aware of D’s shock due to its shock; (b) A was coming from her head; (c) A was trying to remove D and she was cut off on the floor; and (d) the defendant did not unilaterally commit assault from D and did not inflict injury upon D; and (d) the defendant did not have any reasonable doubt as to its probative value; and (e) it was hard to see that the defendant was not guilty of the facts charged by the prosecutor when he submitted evidence to the extent that it had no reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s act of violation of Articles 37 through 19 through 5.

It is examined closely by comparing the written judgment with the records.