The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, despite the fact that, at around 03:40 on March 25, 201, the defendant moved the face of the victim B at least once in drinking within the main place in Yannam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, about a number of times in which the victim's head was taken several times again, and that the part of the victim's face was taken several times again in drinking again, and that the victim caused an unsatisfing of the treatment days and the part of the victim

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment that it is difficult for the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above facts charged on the following grounds: (a) each statement in the court and investigation agency of the lower court held by B and the investigative agency of B, each of the statements, the site, and the damaged photographs of E and F, each of the original trials and investigation agency of E and F, which were conducted

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., Eul, the first instance court: (a) viewed that the defendant was taking the part of the defendant's defendant's entry into the second line, and the defendant did not take the part of the second line, but consistently stated that the defendant was unable to take the part of the second line; (b) whether the defendant and the second line F were specifically taking the part of the second line with each other, although the defendant showed that the defendant and the second line F did not take the part of the second line with each other; and (c) at the time, H, the main line of the second line of G at the time, did not have any force to b beyond the limit of the second line with the influence of alcohol at the time, as well as that it did not go beyond the actual line. Rather, B stated that the defendant's entry into the second line, and (c) he received the part of the defendant's entry into the second line.