The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to each statement of the victims, witnesses I, and J, the court below found the defendant guilty of all the charges of this case, although the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that he assaulted the victim F, injured the victim E, and damaged the cell phone owned by the victim J, and the court below acquitted the victim of all the charges of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the victim E is probable to be a person other than the Defendant (a person with a white camera) and that the victim F was a person who destroyed a mobile phone at the time of the victim F, but there is considerable possibility that the victim would be the Defendant. However, the statement made by the victims or witnesses corresponding thereto is reversed or set up with the statement by other witnesses. Since the main employee K, the defendant's relative L, M, N, etc. clearly stated that the perpetrator was erroneously identified as the perpetrator on the ground that the Defendant was not one day, the instant facts charged in the instant case is sufficient to prove guilt only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

The lower court acquitted each of the charges of this case on the ground that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the court below’s reasoning, i.e., (i) the victim F her desire at an investigative agency, and (ii) the victim E, after the victim J’s cell phone clocked, her blocked with bee twed, and her hicked twed at the time, and her hicked tweed off the police’s horses, and went back without escape.

The statement (Evidence No. 21,22 pages) and (2) However, the witness K, at the time of the original trial, was a man who had been at the time when the victims were fighting and fighting and had been at the time of the victim F, and the defendant was not white.