The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The substance of the grounds for appeal consistently states the fact of damage to the victim, and the fact that the statement on the background of the assault was not consistent because the assault was committed in a remote area between husband and wife, and thus the victim’s statement was not true at the investigation stage. Accordingly, it is sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant abused the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant of the instant facts charged and the victim B (the age of 52) are legally married couples, and the Defendant has a record of being subject to the family protective disposition on July 28, 2017 due to the crime of assault against the victim, etc. and special intimidation.

On April 4, 2019, between 00:30 on the same day and 01:00 on the same day, the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol between the Defendant’s dwelling inside the Defendant’s house located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul building C, talking about the issue of the payment of the loan, her hand, her hand boomed the victim’s right right boom.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to acknowledge the facts charged by only the statement of B, the only evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it

1) B made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant was at the time of a defect of Mady who suffered stress due to bank loans and stress” in the police regarding the Defendant’s assault background, but it is not consistent in the court’s statement to the effect that “the Defendant was at the time of her father-child because she was her father-child,” and the content of the statement is also natural because the Defendant, who was under his/her own interest, was her own seated three times with his/her own hand, was her right buck. 2).