The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted in the gist of the grounds for appeal, even though the defendant recognized "a fact that the victim's body was taken through the victim's body" as stated in Paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below when the defendant injured the victim D as stated in the judgment of the court below, the court below acquitted the victim of the grounds that "the fact that the victim's body was taken through the victim's body," without recognizing only "the fact that the victim

2. Although the appellate court did not have a new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence during the trial process, when it intends to re-examine the first instance court's judgment after ex post facto and ex post facto determination, the first instance court's determination as evidence was clearly erroneous.

There should be reasonable circumstances to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is considerably unfair because it is against logical and empirical rules.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017, etc.). In light of L’s legal statement, etc., the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the foregoing part of the assault mode on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that “the fact that the Defendant took the victim’s seat” was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In light of the records in this case where there is no new reason to affect the formation of a conviction in the trial, a thorough examination of the records reveals that the judgment of the court below (in particular, as to L's legal statement) was clearly erroneous.

It is difficult to view that there is a reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., and therefore, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake, etc. by the prosecutor.

3. Conclusion.