The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal submitted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that the charge was committed by the defendant, considering the victim's right-hand eye one time in drinking, with approximately two weeks of treatment, with inside and outside the right-hand eye for the victim, and with influences and influences. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. In light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance trial, unless there exist special circumstances to deem that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or in view of the results of the first instance examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing the argument in the appellate trial, maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is remarkably unfair, the appellate court shall not reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 2009; 2013Do5029, Sept. 12, 2013). b.

The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that it is difficult to deem that there is no reasonable doubt as to the facts charged of this case on the grounds that the following circumstances are difficult to prove.

In comparison with records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake of facts.

1. The victim stated in the court below that he first testified that the defendant was about his face at Stockholm, and that the defendant was the victim.

Even if so, the degree seems not to be serious.

The victim stated in the investigative agency and the court of original instance that he/she was the right eye, but is a photograph submitted by the victim.