The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the police of the victim and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the statement of the court below and the written diagnosis of injury, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. In light of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence adopted by the lower court, the lower court determined that the instant facts charged were proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

The defendant was acquitted on the ground that it is difficult to see it.

1) With respect to photographs taken by a police officer at the time the victim was present at the police on the day of the instant case and conducted an investigation, the victim’s person subject to a disciplinary action, etc., and the victim’s body, etc., and the victim’s body and the body body, etc., are laid with considerable soil or sand to the extent easily recognizable by pictures around the boom. It is natural in light of the empirical rule that the above quantity of soil is laid in the Doco, the body, and the chro, etc. at the time of the police investigation, and it is also inconsistent with the court below’s decision and the police’s statement that the victim was exposed to the face after the launch from the defendant, and that the victim was exposed to the victim’s body and the victim’s body.

2) At the court of the court below, the victim stated that the defendant did not consent the face to the victim's face by facing the victim's face or by horizontally, on the bridge, the defendant left the above direction on the bridge, and supported his own entrance and nose with his own entrance. According to the difference and extension of the place where the defendant and the victim are standing at the time, and the result of the re-performance in the court of the court below, it seems physically impossible for the defendant to prices the victim with the new floor under the above in the attitude where the defendant and the victim together are standing.

3) The victim is the defendant at the time of the instant case.