The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence presented by the prosecutor in the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, since the court below acquitted the defendant.

2. Determination

A. On October 11, 2010, Defendant C, at around 18:10, was unable to take a bath in the G bath of Defendant C’s operation of the Daegu-gu Seoul-gu Defendant C (hereinafter “Bathing bath”), the summary of the facts charged of the instant case, as seen earlier, had the victim A (e.g., son, 73 years of age) who takes the bath in the bath, and had the victim A (e.g., her as soon as soon as possible), and had a dispute.

Defendant B, who had a dispute in his next side, flicked the two arms of the victim, and flicked the victim, H (Suspension of Prosecution on the same day), and Defendant C, in combination with this, flicked the victim’s neck with both descendants, and flicked the victim’s neck.

As a result, the Defendants, in collaboration with the above H, inflicted an injury on the victim, such as catitis that requires treatment for about three weeks.

B. (1) The judgment of the court below (1) among the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court, the statement of each police's suspect interrogation protocol against the victim Gap (hereinafter "victim") [excluding the part concerning the interrogation of suspect B and the protocol of interrogation of suspect (2 times) of the suspect interrogation protocol)] among the police interrogation protocol against the defendant C, there are the victim's statement protocol and the victim's injury diagnosis protocol and each body photo.

(2) (A) On October 14, 2010, the first interrogation of the police (see, e.g., Investigation Record No. 17) held on the day of the instant case that Defendant C had the victim find the victim’s shop and make it possible for the victim to take the bath and take the victim’s bath, leading the victim to the bath, and leading the victim to the bath. On the other hand, Defendant C and his employee came to take the victim’s bath in the bath.