The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury by assaulting the victim, such as cutting the victim’s knife with the knife and pushing the victim’s shoulder, can be sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the fact that the Defendant was unable to recognize the boundary of the land owned and F-owned land by installing a iron plate to stuff several strings.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of aggression, which found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. The lower court: (a) reported from around 2014 to the victim’s parents’ grave installed on the Defendant’s land and its boundaries; (b) on the day of the instant case, the victim was dissatisfied with the Defendant’s reporting to the competent authority of the building located on the Defendant’s land; and (c) the Defendant was dissatisfied with the Defendant’s finding of the victim; and (d) at the same time, H appears to have been in dispute with the Defendant; (c) at the time, the Defendant stated that “it was not deemed that the Defendant did not look at the victim’s breath or breath, but did not do so; and (d) at the time, the victim reported the phone at 112 to the effect that “the victim was unable to meet I’s way,” and the police officer called “the victim was not subject to assault from the Defendant,” but did not appear to have been in dispute with the victim on the ground that the police officer called out to the scene at the time of the occurrence of the injury.”