A. According to the records of the instant case, the Defendant filed an appeal against the lower judgment on April 18, 2016, and received the notification of the receipt of the trial record on July 7, 2016, but failed to submit the statement of grounds for appeal within 20 days from the date of filing the notification of the receipt of the trial record. Thus, the petition of appeal does not contain any indication of the grounds for appeal, nor does it find any reasons ex officio after examining the lower judgment.

Therefore, it is necessary to decide to dismiss the defendant's appeal in accordance with Article 361-4 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as a judgment is rendered on the prosecutor's appeal, it is necessary to decide not to separately dismiss the appeal and also to decide

B. Prosecutor 1) In misapprehension of the legal principle, at least there was an intentional negligence on the victim’s injury. Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the crime of injury erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court rendered a judgment on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine: (a) determined that the Defendant was not guilty on the part of the victim, on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize the intention of injury in light of the fact that the Defendant was able to recognize the fact that the Defendant committed assault against the victim, but it appears that the Defendant was likely to have pushed the victim to commit a

In light of the evidence and evidence, the court below’s decision that found this part of the facts charged not guilty is acceptable. The court below’s decision did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

3. The crime of this case on the assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be committed by the defendant to report his failure, such as borrowing the victim’s house from the victim’s house.