The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: ① consistently from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, the defendant stated to the effect that “D has carried head debt and fighting with his body”; ② The photograph taken on the day of the instant case reveals that D’s chest, knee, knee and knee are consistent with D’s statement; ③ In light of the fact that D’s statement corresponds to D’s statement, credibility is recognized; thus, the defendant is deemed to have inflicted injury on D in the course of fighting mutual body with D; and, in light of the fact that the degree of injury is not minor as two weeks, the defendant’s act is difficult to be deemed as legitimate self-defense or legitimate act, the court below erred by misapprehending legal principles and misapprehending legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant consistently denies the facts charged in the instant case from the investigative agency to this court, asserting that “D, while taking the head debt in the instant case, flaged off with her head debt, her head flag and telephone, etc. on board the ship with her head flag, and there is no flag in D, and there is no flag in D.” As such, the Defendant stated that “D’s police, as evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case, each of the statements in the lower court and the trial court, and the diagnosis of injury to D.”

B. As to the credibility of each of the statements made by D, D consistently stated from the investigative agency to the present court that “the defendant first gets head debt in this court, followed each other by putting him/her head debt, and then putting him/her over his/her own head debt in custody, and at the same time when the defendant was sent back to the floor with his/her head and chests, etc. several times with his/her head and chests, etc., and made several times with his/her head and chests in drinking, etc.” According to the written diagnosis of injury, according to the statement of the written diagnosis of injury, it seems that the part and contents of the injury are consistent with the above argument made by the court below. However, in addition to the various circumstances stated in the reasoning of the judgment of this case,