The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. It is true that the victim submitted a written complaint 40 days after the occurrence of the case. However, this is only for the purpose of reaching an agreement with the defendant, and the injury diagnosis itself was followed two days after the occurrence of the case.

In light of the record prepared against the victim immediately after the occurrence of the instant case, the victim consistently asserted the fact of damage, such as stating, “The victim has prevented the Defendant from being assaulted by him/her in his/her left hand.”

Inasmuch as the victim and the defendant have no record of injury and physical strength are similar to each other, it is difficult to think that the victim unilaterally assaulted the defendant in light of the empirical rule, and rather, it is consistent with the empirical rule to view that the defendant committed an assault against the victim.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts that the defendant acquitted.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the following grounds.

The evidence that seems directly correspond to the facts charged in this case lies in the victim's statement in the court and investigation agency and the victim's diagnosis. The following circumstances acknowledged by the records are: ① The victim filed a complaint with the investigative agency about 40 days after the date of the occurrence of this case with the defendant that he was assaulted by the defendant; ② The policeF dispatched to the scene on the day of the occurrence of this case to the scene was the only defendant at the time of the dispatch to the scene of this case; the victim was forced to appear on the spot; the victim was forced to appear on the spot; the victim was forced to ask the victim about whether he was assault or assault, and the victim stated that the victim unilaterally responded to the defendant; ③ the defendant from the investigative agency to the court.