The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The abstract of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) is justifiable in the motive or purpose that the defendant inflicted an assault on the victim

It is difficult to see that the defendant was unable to use the stairs, etc. in front of an elevator while the victim was able to return to the elevator, and thus, the means of the victim's arms cannot be deemed inappropriate and supplementaryness cannot be recognized.

In addition, the benefit that the defendant gains by assaulting the victim is merely mere inconvenience, while the damage suffered by the victim is a physical damage and thus the balance of legal interests is not recognized. Although the victim did not exercise any physical power, the defendant first committed assault against the victim, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the act of assault by the defendant constitutes passive defensive act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant even though the act of assault by the defendant does not constitute a legitimate act is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant appears to have been trying to avoid the victim at the time of the instant case because the Defendant had already been punished for legal disputes over a considerable period of time with the victim, ② the Defendant’s demand for the repayment of the obligation by the victim, not actively attacked the victim before the elevator, but did not actively attack the victim, and ③ the degree of physical strength of the Defendant inflicted upon the victim seems to have been considerably weak (the victim was at the investigative agency and the court of the court of the court of the court of the court below that the Defendant was faced with the head and lost his mind after the Defendant was faced with the wall. However, the prosecutor merely sold the Defendant.