The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below which acquitted the victim of the facts charged of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although the defendant found that he had injured the victim C's chest above the ground floor by pushing the victim C's chest.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a dump driving technician who resides in the same club as the victim C, and around 20:00 on September 8, 2012, the Defendant got the victim to go beyond the ground floor by having the victim go beyond the victim's chest with the victim's finger hand, who was the victim of the instant case, "I am Do, I am Do," and "I am Do, I am."

As a result, the Defendant suffered bodily injury that requires two-time medical treatment such as spawn, spawn, etc. to the victim.

B. The court below held that the medical examination of injury only corresponds to the part and degree of injury, so there is a statement by F's investigative agency and the victim's statement that corresponds to the facts charged in this case. The first of all, it is recognized that F submitted to the police a written statement that F was involved in the defendant's remaining behind the victim by pushing the victim, but F was difficult at the time of the case at the court of the court below, because F was unable to look at the victim's chest, and the defendant did not look at the victim's chest. At the time of the judgment, the defendant's statement that the defendant was pushed the victim was used, so it is difficult to believe that F's statement in investigation agency was made as it is, and therefore, F's statement is difficult to believe that F's statement was made at the time of the case at the court of the court of the court below, and that F did not sealed or assault the victim at the time of the case, and immediately after the occurrence of the case, the victim stated that he was sent.