The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) the fact that the defendant suffered an injury by destroying the victim beyond the floor by pushing the victim is sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant was injured by the victim, as stated in the facts charged of this case, on the grounds that it is difficult to believe that the victim’s statement in the investigative agency and the lower court court’s judgment was in the same manner, and that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the victim was injured by the victim

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following facts or circumstances are recognized:

First of all, the victim made a consistent statement on the background of the victim's injury, that is, the background of the victim's injury face, and rather, made a statement by specifying the time after the lapse of time.

또한, 이 사건 발생 당시 E에게 전화를 한 시점에 관해서도 당시 피해자가 피고인을 �아가 붙잡기도 한 상황을 고려할 때 쉽게 납득하기 어렵고, E의 이 부분 진술과도 엇갈린다.

Furthermore, it is difficult to believe the victim's statement as it is in view of CCTV images in which the victim attached the defendant.

The statements of E, as shown in the facts charged of the instant case, are difficult to believe in light of the relationship between the victim and E as well as not directly witness the scene of the instant case by E.

Next, as seen earlier, the statements made by the victim, etc. that the defendant injured the victim by assaulting the victim cannot be trusted as it is, and the result of injury was likely to have occurred due to other causes than the defendant's assault.