The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (defluence of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) D and F’s respective statements are consistent with the part of the Defendant’s insertion, and according to such D and F’s respective statements, injury diagnosis statements, photographs, etc., the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on D by inserting inserted.

2. Determination

A. On August 14, 2012, at around 07:00 on August 14, 2012, the Defendant: (a) in the Defendant’s house located in Chungcheongnam-gun A; (b) during the dispute arising from the use of the Victim D (year 51) type E and Mail, the Defendant inserted a insertion that was placed adjacent to the Victim and put the Victim into an open room around the snow pool and snow that requires approximately two weeks of treatment.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below held that the defendant suffered injury that requires approximately two weeks' treatment on the face of the face of this case, but it is acknowledged that the defendant suffered injury on the face of this case, i.e., the circumstances indicated in the record, i., ① the defendant since the investigation agency, to the court, stated that "no fact was added at the defense level, but it was added to D," and consistently stated the contents of the insertion and the situation before and after it, ② it is unclear how the injury suffered was found in the inserting or adjacent to the insertion (in the last part of the head's insertion, it appears that there was an injury from the skin, and if it is in line with the horizontal part of the head's insertion, it appears that there was an injury to the defendant's photograph), ③ F and E are not in conflict with the defendant's statement as the parties to this case.