The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and misapprehension of the legal principle), the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can be acknowledged that the defendant committed an injury to the victim as the victim was loaded with a cosmetic container, and the defendant did not constitute self-defense to the victim's grandchildren.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted the instant facts charged.

2. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, a thorough examination of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal in light of the records, the evidence of this case, based on the judgment of the court below, cannot be deemed to have suffered bodily injury by the victim since the defendant was loaded with a cosmetic container, and the defendant's homicide, etc. was just self-defense, and the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit, since new evidence corresponding to the facts charged of this case was not submitted in the trial.

3. In this case, an ex officio determination is instituted for the crime of injury that “the defendant brought an injury to the victim, such as the number of days of treatment, influence, influence of the victim’s body by hand, and by asking the victim’s hand, etc. by asking the victim’s hand, etc., of the container.”

However, the defendant cannot be deemed to have suffered injury by the victim because the defendant was in the container of cosmetics, and the defendant's entrance constitutes self-defense as seen earlier. The defendant expressed his/her intent that the victim would not want the punishment of the defendant in relation to the crime of assaulting assaulting the victim's body by cosmetic container, and by hand, the defendant expressed his/her intention that the victim would not want the punishment of the defendant in the court below. Thus, this case constitutes a case where the prosecution cannot be instituted in accordance with Article 260 (3) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the prosecution of this case is executed.