The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (public prosecutor) as to the grounds for appeal, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case even if the defendant was found to have inflicted an injury by assaulting the victim as stated in the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts

2. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged.

Taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the circumstances as stated in the court below’s reasoning, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor alone was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the instant facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case cannot be seen as having erred by mistake as alleged by the public prosecutor.

shall not be deemed to exist.

A. First, the victim G was the victim's face when he/she arrives at the site of this case in an investigative agency.

피고인이 이마로 자신의 얼굴을 들이받고 발로 가슴을 찼다’ 고 진술하였고( 수사기록 57, 58 면), 피해자의 둘째 아들 H은 수사기관에서 ‘ 자신이 이 사건 현장에 도착하였을 때 피해 자가 바닥에 누워 있고 피고인이 머리로 피해자의 가슴을 비비는 포즈를 취하고 있었다’ 고 진술하기는 하였다( 수사기록 70 면). 그러나 G과 H이 이 사건 발생 당시의 상황을 직접 목격한 것은 아니었고, H이 목격하였다는 상황은 ‘ 피고인이 머리로 피해자의 가슴을 수회 들이받은 후 다리를 걸어 넘어뜨렸다’ 는 이 사건 공소사실과는 차이가 있다.

B. G stated that “the victim was faced with the face when he/she arrives at the site of this case” as above.

In doing so, the phrase “no physical damage was inflicted on the land immediately after the occurrence of the instant case.”