The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the victim's statement, injury diagnosis statement, I's statement, etc., the court below found the defendant guilty of causing injury to the victim as stated in the facts charged, but it erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court determined as follows: (a) consistently stated from the investigative agency to the lower court to the effect that “the Defendant was unable to see the victim’s head due to illness”; (b) there is no credibility in the first instance court’s statement to the effect that “the Defendant was at the time of the victim’s head due to illness”; and (c) the victim stated in the investigative agency that “the Defendant was at the time of the victim’s head due to de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto.”

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court.