The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged, could have found that the Defendant had inflicted bodily injury on the victim by cutting down the victim D’s arms and roots them, but the lower court acquitted the

2. Determination

A. The judgment on the grounds of appeal (1) around 10:10 on May 5, 2015, the Defendant, at around 10:10, inflicted an injury on the victim, such as “the head of the Si/Gun/Gu may, in the course of opening the front door of the victim’s husband E and the Si/Gun/Gu in front of the present entrance of the victim of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul and the second floor D, on the vehicle moving parking in front of the present entrance of the victim of the victim of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul and the second floor D, the victim’s husband and the her husband want to close the front door, “I want to close the door if I want to close the door,” and the Defendant was removed from the seat of the victim who was suffering from the knife, and spread the arms, and caused the victim to suffer approximately two weeks of treatment.

(2) The judgment of the court below held that there is a statement in D, E's investigative agency and court room, and a diagnosis of injury in the preparation of doctor F, and D made a statement to the effect that it had gone against the present facts charged, and that it had gone against the left arms in the court even though it was submitted to the investigation agency, even though it had submitted the written diagnosis of injury to it, and that the statement was not consistent. E also in this court made a statement to the effect that D had gone through the left arms at the time of this court, and it did not interfere with D's eating, and it did not interfere with D's drinking, so it was different from the injured parts indicated in the injury diagnosis report, and the prosecutor made a statement to the effect that it would be memory with the left arms, and the defendant did not have any distinct and distinct character between D and the defendant's kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't in this court.