The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, although it can be recognized that the defendant inflicted bodily injury on the victim as shown in the facts charged, the court below acquitted the victim of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. On June 2, 2013, around 11:30 on June 2, 2013, the Defendant argued that the Defendant destroyed the compact Defendant installed at his own shop, and that he was spabling and pushed down the victim’s boom.

As a result, the defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as the left-hand side in need of treatment for about two weeks.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment that the victim D’s statement at the lower court and the investigative agency, as shown in the facts charged, are difficult to believe in light of the following circumstances, and the entries in the injury diagnosis report alone are insufficient to recognize the facts charged, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(1) At the first police station, D made a written statement that “(the Defendant) was satisfing the balth and snow.” While the Defendant was investigated as a suspect of the assault case, D made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant was satisfing the floor by cutting the satisf by hand, felling the satisfing on the floor, and, at that time, he was satfing the sat, sating the satfing and sating the satisfing........” After that, upon submitting a written diagnosis of the injury with “satfing the satfal bed and sating the satfal on the face” to the effect that “the Defendant was satfing the satfal at the wall of the subway exchange system that was adjacent to the police station, he made a statement to the effect that it was changed to the extent of his satisfing and sating the satisf....”