In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor in the records of this case, although the defendant could fully recognize the fact that the victim suffered bodily injury, such as a satisfying satfeing the left-hand side in need of approximately seven weeks of medical treatment, even though the damage suffered from the victim G satfe in the gap, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on a different premise.

Judgment

On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the instant prosecution against the Defendant on March 11, 201, on the grounds that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the instant injury occurred due to the act of closing the door of the Defendant, and thus, it cannot be punished as the crime of injury, and only the crime of assault can be established against the Defendant. However, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the instant prosecution against the Defendant on the grounds that the victim expressed his/her intent not to be punished against the Defendant on March

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence of this case is conducted. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged as to the injury of this case based on the above evidence judgment and dismissed the public prosecution of this case is justified. The judgment of the court below did not contain any error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as pointed out by the prosecutor, and thus, the prosecutor'

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.