The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the court below acquitted the defendant on the grounds that the victim's statement and memory with respect to incidental facts can be rejected on the grounds that the victim's statement and the statement of the police officer in mobilization where it is not certain to prove the victim's identity cannot be ruled out in the process of cutting away a tree stick from the defendant, and that the victim's face cannot be ruled out. Thus, the court below erred in matters of law by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that: (a) although the Defendant stated a tree stick on several occasions on the part of the victim, the Defendant consistently asserts that there is no fact about the victim’s face by a tree stick; (b) the victim met with a tree stick “free” or “15 through 16 times” face, shoulder, and lusium from the Defendant; (c) the victim’s statement from the Defendant that the victim continued to be assaulted by the Defendant is difficult to believe; (d) the victim’s statement that the victim took away the Defendant’s tree can not be believed; (e) the victim’s injury diagnosis letter on the victim only includes an internal check and a brut; (c) the victim stated that he used to assault the Defendant’s face after leaving the scene of the instant case; (d) the victim stated that E, a police officer at the scene of the instant case, was unable to memory the victim’s face; and (d) the victim cannot be deemed as having submitted evidence to the effect that there is no possibility of complete suspicion in the process of destroying the Defendant’s tree can not be ruled out.

B. The judgment of the court below is justified.