The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. The injury under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act refers to the injury of the victim’s physical integrity or physiological function (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do4305, Feb. 25, 2000). If the injured party’s body is extremely minor and the injured party does not need treatment, and even if the injured party’s body does not undergo treatment, it does not interfere with daily life and can be naturally cured upon the passage of the time, it cannot be deemed that the injured party’s physical health condition was changed or that the injured party’s life function was hindered, and thus, it does not constitute injury to the injured party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do2673, Dec. 23, 196; 9Do3910, Feb. 25, 2000).

In particular, when the death diagnosis report is issued only by medical possibility based on the victim's subjective appeal, etc. that mainly has paind, whether the date and time of the diagnosis is close to the time and time of the occurrence of the injury and there is no reason to suspect the credibility in the process of the issuance of the injury, and whether the part and degree of the injury stated in the injury diagnosis report are consistent with the cause and circumstance of the injury claimed by the victim.