The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The statements made by the victim C investigative agency in the summary of the grounds for appeal are specific and consistent with the contents thereof, and thus, credibility is high.

On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that the victim's statement in the court below is contrary to the statements of the victim's employees or police officers dispatched to the scene at the time.

When considering the fact that the victim's statement was made after the agreement with the defendant, the victim seems to have reversed the statement to the investigation agency in return for receiving the agreement from the defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which rejected the credibility of the statement made by the victim in the investigative agency and acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the judgment.

2. The judgment C, as indicated in the facts charged in the investigation agency, stated in the facts charged, that “the defendant was suffering from beer's face, and beer's disease was faced with a television bottom.” However, the judgment reversed the statement made at the investigation agency by making the statement to the effect that “the defendant was faced with beer's body, and the beer's disease fell on the floor”, “the defendant was satisd with beer's body, and the body was satisd with the defendant's body,” and “the defendant was satisd with the defendant's oral statements made by an investigative agency to receive the drinking value from the defendant.”

It is difficult to easily understand the C's statement on the grounds that the investigative agency stated differently from the fact.

However, at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, the Defendant and C did not appear (at the time, even though the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol), and E, an employee, stated in the investigation agency and the court of original instance that “C does not have any doubt about the beer’s disease,” and there was no objective evidence that conforms to the instant facts charged, such as the trace of beer’s disease facing the wall, etc.

As stated in the judgment of the court below.