The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding/legal scenario) D was found to have a defendant's clothes on the dunes of the defendant, so it was a new attack that goes against a simple defense act, and thus, the judgment of the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) even if the Defendant first saw D with D in the process of doing so; (b) was deemed to have been able to catch the Defendant’s breath while taking the shape; and (c) the Defendant d’s floth hand by cutting off the d’s arms and cutting off the d’s flob, thereby repeatedly cutting off the d’s d’s floth hand by repeatedly cutting off the d’s flob, etc., the Defendant’s above act is merely a passive act resistanceing against D’s attack, and thus constitutes self-defense under Article 21(1) of the Criminal Act; and (d) the facts charged of the instant case constitutes a case where the crime was not committed.

B. In light of the circumstances revealed by the court below in the decision of party members, although the witness D of the court below stated that the defendant's saw saw saw saw was missing due to the defendant's assault at the investigative agency (in the face of 37 of the investigation record) but the court below stated that saw saw saw saw saw saw was omitted due to the defendant's assault (in the face of 45 of the investigation record), it is not consistent and it is not possible to believe saw saw saw saw as it is because it is consistent with the facts charged after the lapse of time, and it is difficult for the defendant to believe saw saw saw due to the shock of D, in light of the empirical rule, it is difficult for the defendant to believe saw saw saw from D in light of the fact that the defendant's saw saw was removed from D.