The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. The Defendant was consistently informed from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court of the fact that he/she had consistently been faced with face face and head from the Defendant.

Specifically, the investigation report stating the on-site situation at the time of the instant case stated that “the victim was deep above the face of the victim,” and the victim was sent to the hospital immediately after the police being called back to 119th, so it is sufficient for the Defendant to have inflicted an injury in consideration of the victim’s injury.

B. The punishment of the lower court (three months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, one year of protection observation) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. In the police investigation and the court of the court below, the victim determined the misunderstanding of the facts, “The defendant was seated by the victim and her face and head was sleeped twice,” and the defendant saw the body flick in his hand.

The defendant took a variety of faces and body in half-to half of his body.

When the defendant made a statement in the shape of the wall head, face, and face, "," and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the circumstances described in the statement of the court below, i.e., ① the victim's body and the victim's body, as alleged by the victim, were exposed to several times, the victim suffered serious injury. However, on-site photographs at the time of the dispatch of the police officer to the defendant and the victim, and the diagnosis of the victim's injury cannot be seen as having been influences of the injury facing math in addition to the degree of throst, face, blood transfusion and the stimulation of the face part, and the injury to the victim. ② At the time of the dispatch of the police officer, the defendant and the victim were not discovered at the scene, and there was a low possibility that the defendant might have concealed the wall because the victim exceeded the subsequent string, and ③ the victim was the victim.