The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is recognized as having insulting the victim C as stated in the facts charged, and the lower court acquitted the Defendant, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. On May 19, 2019, around 19:50 on May 19, 2019, the summary of the facts charged was found to be found by the Defendant in the B prison where the Defendant was admitted by the victim C, a correctional officer, and the victim.

Sheeting swelves, swelves, swelves and swelves

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the charge, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant, who was off 7:50 minutes in a prison; (b) the Defendant pointed out it in front of a ward; and (c) the Defendant, who was in the front of a ward, pointed out that the Defendant was off 7:50 minutes in a prison; and (d) the Defendant, who was in the front of a ward, was a prison officer, was in talked between the correctional officer and the Defendant. As such, it is recognized that there was a conflict between the Defendant and the Defendant, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant’s testimony in each court of the lower judgment in the same ward, including D and E, the Defendant’s testimony in each court; and (b) the Defendant’s immediately divided emergency bell after having been aware of the correctional officer, and (b) the Defendant was not guilty of the Defendant.

C. The facts charged in a criminal trial for a trial at the trial of a party shall be proved by the prosecutor, and the judge shall be convicted with evidence having probative value that leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant, and Supreme Court Decision on April 15, 2005.