The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal consistently states that the victim had consistently made a statement from the defendant that he saw breath, and the court below rejected the credibility of the victim's statement and acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. A. The summary of the facts charged was around 08:00 on July 23, 2014, the Defendant assaulted the victim by putting the victim C in a 233 MMadi office in a 203 chidi office of Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Incheon, thereby making the victim’s bomb with bombomb, with her hand.

B. Each legal statement of the witness C and D may be admitted as evidence that seems to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, but ① in the lower court, witness E had a larlar with the victim to avoid going beyond the Defendant.

‘는 취지로 증언하였고, 피해자도 피고인의 멱살을 먼저 잡은 사실을 인정하고 있는 점, ② 이 사건 당일 출동한 경찰관이 작성한 출동보고서에 의하면, 당시 피고인은 피해자에 대한 처벌을 강력하게 원하고 있었고, 피고인의 목부위에 반창고가 붙여져 있던 반면, 피해자는 육안으로 확인되는 피해의 흔적이 없었으며, 피고인은 ’엉겁결에 피해자의 멱살을 잡았고, 멱살을 잡으려고 한 것이 아니다

D, which is alleged to be “,” the above dispatch report, can be expressed as a flabing in the case where the “in the original trial,” “in a dub,” can be expressed as a dubling.

In light of the fact that he testified, etc., the possibility that the defendant was able to take a dubling or dubbling from the victim in order to prevent the defendant who was flabing with dubling while he was seated cannot be ruled out. It is difficult to evaluate the defendant's act as a assault, and it is difficult to view that the defendant had an intent to commit assault.

C. The above circumstances are the victim and the defendant that the court below properly made.