The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) In light of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the lower court, based on the misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, found the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, committed assault and assault by breath of the victim.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (a sum of KRW 700,00) is too unhued and unfair.

2. 1) Determination of the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the prosecutor, the evidence alone, which was presented by the prosecutor, deemed that the Defendant was in favor of the victim with the victim’s intent to commit assault at the time of the instant case.

It is difficult to conclude that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the facts charged are acquitted.

(1) While the Defendant was engaged in a flabbage, he was not in a magazine with the victim’s flab.

The statements are consistently made.

(2) The injured party is that in the course of removing the accused who is fat with F, the accused was fated once by fat.

argument is asserted.

However, the F had no physical conflict between the defendant and the victim, unlike the victim.

In light of the fact that the victim was under the influence of alcohol at the time, it is difficult to believe the above statement of the victim as it is.

(3) Even if the defendant was found to have been able to catch the victim’s breath.

However, in light of the victim's statement that the victim first pushed the chest of the defendant in order to fight the defendant and F, and that the defendant was booming the victim's breath at the time of locking, the victim's intentional act of assaulting the victim at the time was deemed to have been in the victim's breath.

It is difficult to see it.

(2) The lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court in light of the aforementioned circumstances cited by the lower court.

(1)