The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. On October 27, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 10:20 on October 27, 2014, the charge of the instant case, and (b) on the street of the D office located in Seocheon-si C, the Defendant, who was in dispute with E (49 years of age) was injured by the E’s chest and was in need of approximately two weeks of treatment for E, and was in need of a confection and tension.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that “It is recognized that the Defendant was a citizen of the chest to E in the course of engaging in a dispute with E, but it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant was sealed with E’s chest or suffered bodily injury due to the fact at the time of the prosecutor’s submission of evidence alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.”

① A witness E testified at the court of the court below that “the Defendant was “the Defendant’s son” and her and the Defendant was at the blind spot of the CCTV.” In this case where there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant was in the blind spot of the CCTV with the awareness of CCTV, and there was no civil defense as to the fact that the Defendant was in the blind spot of the CCTV by hand, the witness E’s testimony that “if the Defendant was in a blind spot of theCCTV’s TV, it cannot be readily concluded that the testimony of the witness E was not necessarily false, even if the Defendant was in a blind spot of the CCTV, and even if the Defendant was not in a public interest, it is difficult to readily reject the testimony of the witness F (a witness).

② At the court of the court below, the witness E got her match without saying, the company had a contact that “the defendant complained against him,” thereby became a hospital.