The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant assaulted with the victim’s will by destroying flab, and this constitutes both delegation of defense and act of attack at the same time as the act of attack committed during fighting, and thus, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case on the contrary, in so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. On September 12, 2014, the Defendant, on September 12, 2014, filed a dispute over the victim E (48 Does) and the business share share in the D cafeteria located in Daejeon-gu Daejeon-gu.

In addition, at the front of the above restaurant, the victim saw the face of the defendant on a hand, dump of the defendant on a flaps, and dump of the defendant on the flaps of the defendant, and assaulted the victim by flapsing the flaps of the victim on the flaps.

B. First, we examine how the Defendant assaults E.

Witness

E’s statement in the court of first instance, the statement in the investigative agency, and the witness F’s statement in the court of first instance are difficult to believe, and the witness G’s statement in the court of first instance and the investigation report(s) are insufficient to recognize the facts charged.

The credibility evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assaulting the victim is limited to H’s statement in the court of first instance and in the investigative agency. According to this, the Defendant’s flabation is recognized (it cannot be recognized that the Defendant was inflabing the e’s flab). 2) The Defendant’s flab constituted legitimate defense.

E’s face can be seen as a drinking, and the Defendant’s breath, flapsing the breath of the Defendant’s flaps, and flapsing the Defendant’s flaps. The Defendant, due to the assault of E, suffered bodily injury, such as tearing the flaps, flapsing the bones, flapsing the bones, and flapsing around 25 days.