The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The victim's statement in the summary of the grounds of appeal is consistent with the main part that "the defendant was tightly away from the left side," and it is recognized that according to the victim's statement, injury diagnosis statement, and copy of the medical record, the defendant suffered bodily injury by harming the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted.

2. The defendant and the victim B (V, 69 years old) are the former and latter president of the "C Building" respectively.

On July 10, 2017, at around 21:45, the Defendant: (a) placed the victim, the former president of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Building 1’s corridor, “I would know about her husband because I would not promptly transfer data related to the management fees;” and (b) tried to go up to the third floor where the victim’s house is located, and the victim prevented the victim from going back to the third floor where the victim’s house is located; and (c) caused the victim to suffer approximately 8 weeks of medical treatment.

3. The lower court rendered a judgment on the following grounds, on the grounds that it is difficult to view that the facts charged in the instant case, which the Defendant had inflicted bodily injury upon B by only the evidence of the submission of the prosecutor, was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus, acquitted the Defendant.

① As to how the Defendant used to assault one part of the body part of B in one arms, it is not consistent with B’s statement from the accusation to the original trial court, and the circumstances after the assault, and the statements of B on the instrument that occurred after the assault, are inconsistent, and therefore, it is difficult to believe B’s statement.

(2) The CCTV images of an elevator shall not be the face of the defendant who assaults B.

(3) Although the written diagnosis of injury states that B has suffered from the two pressure frames, it shall not be directly proven that such injury was caused by the defendant's act.

B explain that the first seal of the medical treatment should be treated as non-benefit if the doctor wishes to do so on July 11, 2017.