The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the following facts: (a) the victim of the grounds for appeal (not guilty part) stated in the investigative agency and the court of the court below that “the defendant was shouldered with the shoulder and breast part,” and the victim was issued with the written diagnosis of injury, the Defendant is recognized to have inflicted an injury on the shoulder, tension, etc. by assaulting the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment consistently denied the Defendant’s act of assaulting the victim’s body, or consistently denying the Defendant’s act of assaulting the victim’s body from the investigation process to this court. On the other hand, the victim stated on the day of the instant police investigation that “the Defendant assaulted the Defendant on five occasions his right shoulder and chest in drinking,” and in the court of the lower court, the Defendant took into account the following: (a) the Defendant’s act of attacking the victim from this investigation to this court to this court; (b) the Defendant was committed after the lapse of six months after this case’s statement was made.

In light of the circumstances that the victim argued that he was continuously receiving medical treatment, it is not easy to point out the part of the injury. On the other hand, according to the voice file CD recorded and submitted by the victim at the site of this case, it is confirmed that the victim called "(the defendant)" and "I want to see the victim's humf, humf, humf, and humf," or "I want to humf, humf, humf, and humf," but it does not seem that the victim humf, or was humf, and that it seems that the victim was humf, and that the defendant was humf, and that "I humf, humf, humf, humf," and that the victim and the victim at the time of this case are lumf.