The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) the issue of the instant case is whether D was assaulted by ASEAN (hereinafter “the instant assault”) on September 18, 2016 and on September 23, 2016, as the Defendant filed a complaint; (b) as at the time of the filing of the complaint with the effect that D had multiple assaults from C on September 29, 2016 before the complaint of the instant case (hereinafter “first complaint”), there was no mentioning about the instant assault that occurred most recently; and (c) even during the investigation process, etc. initiated by the instant complaint of this case, there was lack of concreteness of the statement, such as failure to properly specify the date and time of the instant assault; (b) the time before and after the issuance of the diagnosis certificate and the time of the above issuance, it appears that D did not appear to have been issued with C’s first accusation as it did not have any evidence that D did not appear to have been issued with C’s first accusation as it did not come to have been in favor of D’s first accusation.

2. The lower court determined: (a) stated in the lower court that D was to the effect that D was assaulted almost every day from July 2017, when D had started to kill with C; (b) the possibility that D was assaulted by C even after the drilling on September 2016 cannot be ruled out; and (c) the prosecutor of the instant case.