The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant misunderstanding of the fact committed an assault case (hereinafter “victim”) around 00:40 on March 22, 2017, which occurred on or around 00:40 on March 22, 2017, and that the Defendant induced the victim to the office of Defendant E (hereinafter “victim”) and the Defendant’s office for not more than three hours immediately after the departure from the police station in Guro-ro, thereby inducing the victim to commit an assault. In the previous assault case, considering the fact that the Defendant repeated the Defendant’s desire to take the frighten of the Defendant and the body fighting of the victim, the fact that the Defendant committed an assault with the intent of retaliationing the fright of the victim.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, etc.) is too uneasy and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court determined as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the circumstance acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated; (ii) the victim or F did not perform the act of providing “the proviso to investigation, such as an accusation,” as prescribed by Article 5-9(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against the preceding assault case; (iii) the victim did not make a statement about the preceding assault case at the investigative agency; and (iv) the victim did not submit the relevant materials; and (iii) the victim made a statement about the preceding assault case at the investigative agency.

Even if the defendant was aware of the existence or content of such statement

In full view of the facts that the victim cannot be seen, ④ the fact that the defendant did not mention the victim’s statement in an investigative agency about the prior assault case at the time of the victim’s injury, ⑤ the investigation of the prior assault case, and the victim suggested that the victim was more defective, first of all, the victim from the police station was the defendant and the victim was moved together with the defendant, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient.