A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows, and the prosecutor argued that Article 257 of the Criminal Act should apply to the defendant's behavior as stated in the facts charged.

On August 11, 2015, the Defendant, at around 23:30 on August 23:30, 2015, suffered injury to the Defendant, i.e., “D main points” operated by the Defendant, who is the Defendant and related person E and the Victim F (hereinafter the age of 43) on the extension of the time of contact, by having the victim go beyond the victim due to the double hand, by pushing the victim’s chest part of the chest, which requires approximately 12 weeks of medical treatment.

B. (i) The lower court’s judgment: (a) comprehensively based on the evidence duly admitted and examined, recognized that the act of the Defendant at the time of the Defendant seal (“the act is merely a removal of the victim’s finger who was not the victim’s chest, but E’s finger,” and on the following grounds, determined that “the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, which, on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the Defendant, led to dolusent injury, such as recognizing the result of the Defendant’s injury and allowing it, and that this part of the facts charged was sufficiently proven to the extent that it could be excluded from a reasonable doubt.

The lower court determined that the instant facts charged were insufficient to be seen, and there was no clear evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.

The victim from the police to the court of the court below, "the victim and E are in a dispute with the victim," and the defendant appeared to have been in his own opinion, and the victim was in excess of the victim's chest.

In addition, the victim made a statement to the effect that “the victim does not have any flabbbbage in E on the day of the instant case.”

However, the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e. the defendant.