The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is consistent with the following facts: (a) the victim D has consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below as to the fact that “the Defendant has plucked, plucked, and plucked by the Defendant,” and the victim’s injury diagnosis is supported by the victim’s statement; and (b) the witness E also has consistently made a statement as to the fact that “the Defendant was harming the victim,” from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below, and thus, the facts charged in the instant case are recognized in accordance with

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the remaining facts charged of this case, thereby finding the Defendant not guilty.

2. Determination

가. 공소사실의 요지 피고인은 2014. 1. 17. 00:40경 서울 금천구 B에 있는 ‘C주점’ 내에서, 피해자 D(58세)에게 집에 들어가라고 하였으나 피해자가 네가 뭔데 가라 마라고 하냐며 되묻자 피해자를 옆으로 밀어 넘어뜨렸고 계속하여 피해자의 양손을 잡아 꺽고, 피해자의 가슴 부위를 주먹으로 수회 때리는 등 하여 피해자에게 약 2주간의 치료를 요하는 양측 손 부분의 타박상의 상해를 가하였다.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment on the grounds that the statements of D and E are not consistent, and are inconsistent with each of the statements of D and E, and that the content of the injury diagnosis is inconsistent with D and E, and that E cannot be ruled out the possibility that they would have made a favorable statement in favor of D due to D’s employee relationship, it is difficult to believe each of the statements of D and E as they are, and the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged of the instant case, and thus, acquitted the facts charged of the instant case.

B. The difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluation of credibility is considered in accordance with the spirit of substantial direct cross-examination that the Korean Criminal Procedure Act adopts as one of the elements of the trial-oriented principle.