The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor is as follows: ① With respect to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below, the credibility of the victim E’s statement is high; the judgment of the court below in this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and ② in light of the above error and the criminal records of the defendant’s same kind of crime, etc., the sentence (50,000 won) of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is too unb

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the mistake of fact, the summary of the facts charged as to the acquittal portion of the judgment below is as follows.

On April 21, 2015, at the D parking lot located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around 05:50, the Defendant, while working for bus operation, was in contact with the victim E (64 years) for the reason that the Defendant had not yet been repaired after the contact accident in the past, and the Defendant was in dispute with the victim E (64 years). The Defendant carried the victim’s flab with her hand, was pushed down with the victim’s flab, and the Defendant’s fee F was twice the victim’s face by drinking flab.

As a result, the defendant jointly with F, caused the victim to suffer a diversity test in the area around snow and snow, breast, etc. in need of approximately two weeks of treatment.

(2) As to this, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to have reliablely reliable the statement of E, which is the only evidence in fact concerning the F’s participation in the crime, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant has injured E.

In light of the above, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and there was a mistake of misunderstanding of facts, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

It does not appear.

B. We look at the unfair sentencing, as argued by the Prosecutor, the defendant has the same criminal history, but all of them have been prior to 2004, and the father and degree of the assault, and the age of the defendant;