The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the statement of the victim of the grounds for appeal, medical records against the victim, etc., the defendant's chest part of the victim's chest was sealed once, and there were any symptoms that cause inconvenience to the victim's breast part of the victim's breast part, and the victim's symptoms to the above symptoms due to the victim's taking the drug.

Therefore, even though the defendant's assault could sufficiently recognize the fact that the victim suffered harm from the physiological function, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the victim of the injury, which is the facts charged of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the judgment

2. Determination

A. On August 30, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 10:50 on August 30, 2015, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (b) at Dambro Roster in Chungcheongnamyang-gun C, G, the father of the Defendant, and parents of E and F (the age of 31), and H taken the form of dispute as a matter of D’s operating right; (c) the F took a smartphone, and (d) caused f to a f’s chest on a single hand, and caused a f’s chest to have approximately two weeks of treatment.

B. The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of the instant case on the following grounds, and dismissed the public prosecution on January 14, 2016 on the ground that the victim expressed his/her intent not to have the Defendant punished, after the prosecution of the instant case, on the grounds that assault in relation to the crime was committed.

【The relevant legal doctrine】 The term “injury” under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act refers to the injury of the victim’s physical integrity or as a result of the physiological function (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do4305, Feb. 25, 2000). In a case where, even without being treated, it does not interfere with daily life without being treated, and where it can be deemed that it can be naturally cured as a result of the passage of time, it cannot be viewed as an injury.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do3910 delivered on February 25, 2000). 【Judgment】 According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant is charged.