The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds of the facts charged in the instant case, and found the Defendant guilty of assault, bodily injury, bodily injury, assault, or intimidation as indicated in the judgment below, which is related to the crime of crime of injury.

In that sense, the prosecutor only appealed on the part of the aforementioned acquittal, and the prosecutor and the defendant did not appeal the part of the conviction. However, the part of the conviction in accordance with the indivisible principle of appeal was also remanded to the trial, but it was in fact exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties and left from the object of trial. Thus, the trial as a party cannot be determined up to that part (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do18070, Feb. 18, 2016). Accordingly, the conclusion of the lower judgment on the part of the conviction should be followed, and it is not separately determined.

2. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the relevant facts charged on the ground that the Defendant had the intention to commit the crime, the degree of injury to the victim, etc., on the part of the Defendant.

3. In a case where there is no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the appellate trial’s trial process, and there is no reasonable ground to believe that the determination of the first deliberation evidence was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is remarkably unfair due to the contrary to logical and empirical rules, the judgment on the recognition of facts in the first deliberation should not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). Since the Criminal Act provides for the crime of assault causing bodily injury to an aggravated offender by the consequence of the crime of assault, in order to establish the crime of bodily injury, the fact that the result of the injury was revealed is insufficient, and the intention of injury should be recognized.

Therefore, the defendant.