The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principle), the court below acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on a different premise, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, even though it was sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had inflicted injury on the right-hand chest of C on April 8, 2016, by putting the Defendant on one time by drinking her finger, and that he/she sustained injury on the E-thropib, on April 27, 2016, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment on the following grounds that the facts charged in the instant case constituted a case where there is no proof of a crime and acquitted the Defendant.

1) The court below reversed the Defendant’s statement to the effect that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the Defendant consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the effect that “the Defendant did not have any fact at the right chest of C once” up to the court of the court below’s trial; ② on April 27, 2016, the police investigation made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant complied with the Defendant’s chest at the time,” and on the telephone conversation with the police officer on July 16, 2016, the Defendant reversed the statement to the effect that “the Defendant appeared to have avoided at the time, but it was not appropriate for C,” and in the court of the court of the court below, the Defendant stated to the effect that “the Defendant did not have suffered any injury upon the Defendant’s chest at the time,” ③ in the police investigation, I stated to the effect that “the Defendant did not suffer any injury upon the Defendant’s chest at the right time,” and that the Defendant did not reverse the judgment to the purport to the purport that Defendant C’s statement.

There are some differences from the arguments, and there is a possibility that the medical examination and treatment was based on the king, and 5 in the investigation agency of E and the court of original instance.