The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the victim suffered the same loss as the stated in the facts charged in this case in the court below.

Since it has consistently and specifically stated its credibility, it can be fully recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant by rejecting the credibility of the victim's statement consistent with the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. On November 16, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 11:00 on the southyang-si, the Defendant suffered from the victim’s end-off part of the charge, such as “fluoring off the fluor of the fluor,” which requires the victim’s treatment for about 28 days, while she had a dispute with the victim D and the vehicle traffic problem; and (b) caused the victim’s end-off part of the charge by her hand.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court determined that the victim’s statement was difficult to believe that the Defendant suffered the same injury as the facts charged, due to the Defendant’s own wing and pushing ahead of it, and the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant sustained the same injury as the facts charged under the awareness and intent of the Defendant’s injury.

For reasons that it is difficult to see that the defendant was acquitted.

① The victim stated that “the Defendant was coming from the vehicle in which he wanted to get off the vehicle, and the Defendant was tightly shaking and shaking the body of the Victim and the Victim.” However, even if the victim was lower and did not have any dispute or physical contact, the Defendant immediately exercised the above form of force.