The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

According to D's statement and injury diagnosis statement, although the defendant could be found to have inflicted an injury on D as stated in the facts charged of this case, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant against the rules of evidence and erroneous facts.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) around 13:00 on December 18, 2012, the director in charge of the management of the Suwon-si Housing Management Office; and (b) around 13:00 on December 18, 2012, the Defendant found D to verify the complaint of D’s inter-floor noise that was received in front of the door door of the victim D (V, 56 years old) who is a resident of the said apartment.

현관문을 열고 나온 D는 피고인에게 ‘관리실에서 2년 동안 뭘 했느냐, 너희들이 뭔데 이렇게 소란을 피우느냐’라고 항의를 하며 고성을 질렀다.

The defendant divided D's two arms by force with double hand, and tried to inspect D's right shoulder and left-hand part of D's shoulder, which require D's treatment for about a week.

Judgment

The defendant denies that there is no doubt that there is no injury against D, consistently from the investigative agency to the court.

As evidence consistent with the facts charged in this case, D's investigation stage, statements in the court of the original trial, and the written diagnosis of injury are located.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the court below comprehensively based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, namely, that the E operating a child care center at the lower floor of D caused noise, which caused noise by the D, such as leaving a banner or setting up a recording tape on the ground that D's operation of the child care center at the lower floor caused noise, and on the day of this case, D's apartment floor was set up on the day of this case, and D's statement that D was entered into the house with the Defendant taking out the two arms of the Bomamast, but the Defendant, as the director of the management division, stated that D's operation was a apartment in order to verify the circumstances after receiving a civil petition for noise.