Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the above charged facts is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the witness D’s legal statement and written diagnosis of injury, etc., appears to be true that D was injured. However, if the type of storage media is accurate, data DVD but all the parties involved in the case are called as CDs.

) Examining CCTV images stored in the CCTV, it is difficult to readily conclude that “D’s injury caused by the Defendant’s arms is the result caused by the Defendant’s movement,” and the Defendant and B did not have any intentional act, and there is no possibility that D’s injury or other injury was inflicted during the process of physical fighting faced by the Defendant and two people. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that there is no possibility that D’s injury or injury was caused by the Defendant’s bodily injury (not only in the doubt about the causal relation, but also in the Defendant’s intent, there is a reasonable doubt as to the Defendant’s intentional act), among the witness D’s legal statement, the police’s written statement of statement of the Defendant, and each police’s written protocol of interrogation of the Defendant against the Defendant, it is insufficient to recognize the facts charged, and there is no proof of the crime without the prosecutor’s otherwise.”

B. In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's duly admitted and investigated evidence, the court below's determination of innocence of this part of the facts charged is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's assertion is justified.