The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim consistently went beyond the stairs of the Defendant at the time of the instant case, following him.

The defendant stated that he was the victim who is going up with the stairs at the time of the instant case and did not dispute the fact that the victim was going out.

The victim was transferred to the hospital immediately after the instant case, and received treatment.

B. At the time of the instant case, the victim was going up with the stairs, and the Defendant did not anticipate that he would be able to take up the stairs.

It is the case of the fact that the injured party was partly cut out from the stairs in the way that the injured party was knifated by the defendant.

(c)

Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, the fact that the defendant was inflicted an injury on the victim by putting the victim who was shot, and even if so, the victim was not injured at the time of the instant case.

Even the defendant's act constitutes violence.

2. Determination

A. The court below held that the defendant is a female under 56 years of age who is unable to use left hand, and the victim is a male of 40s of age, and the defendant was found to have been a victim.

Since it is difficult for the victim to go beyond the stairs to the extent of the Gu, the victim was in excess of 3 CCTV saws at the time of the instant case.

However, at the time of the instant case, CCTV saws were not damaged at all, and witness F complained of the pains immediately after the victim exceeded part at the time of the instant case.

In light of the stated facts, the court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim.

B. Although the appellate court did not have any objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence during the trial process, it was clearly erroneous in the first instance judgment when it is intended to re-examine the first instance judgment and make ex post facto judgments, even though there was no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence.