The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the occurrence of assault and misunderstanding of facts (not guilty part of the judgment of the court below), the defendant was sufficiently predicted that the occurrence of the result of the victim's death, as the victim lost consciousness by assaulting the victim, such as breaking the victim's head head, breaking the victim's head debt, breaking the victim's hand by cutting off the victim's hand, breaking the victim's hand, and breaking the victim's hand over the floor, etc.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of assault death on the ground that there is insufficient evidence about the possibility of expectation of the defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence that the court below rendered unfair sentencing (five million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the crime of assault and death is a so-called as an aggravated crime that is not related to the causal relationship between the consequence of assault and death, i.e., the possibility of predicting the result of death, i.e., by negligence, and such predictability should be strictly taken into account the specific circumstances, such as the degree of assault and response status of the victim, and the scope of predictability should be expanded by expanding the scope of predictability. As such, the purport of Article 15(2) of the Criminal Act harmonizes the principle of liability with the contingent aggravated crime under Article 15(2) of the Criminal Act, thereby exceeding the limit of liability for negligence, and expanding criminal punishment should be avoided (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do1596, Sept. 25, 199; 2009Do3002, Jun. 23, 2009).