The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the consistent statement of the victim, the victim’s personal record, and the written diagnosis of injury, etc., the facts charged of the instant case are fully found guilty.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant is a person who resides in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Building C and resides in the victim D (V, 51 years of age) under the same lending.

On July 26, 2018, the Defendant had a duty of care to prevent in advance water from washing away water that is far away from stairs, since the Defendant received water from the stairs leading to the rooftop from the fifth floor of the above Bara on the rooftop, the Defendant had a duty of care to prevent in advance water washing away from the stairs.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and neglected it and caused the victim to go beyond the floor by water, which is far away from the above stairs, while the victim was working on the rooftop as soon as possible.

Accordingly, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as salt, tensions, etc. in need of treatment for about two weeks due to the above negligence.

B. In the instant case where it is difficult to eliminate the possibility of the Defendant’s appraisal of the damage to the Defendant due to the dispute between the Defendant and the Defendant, it is insufficient to recognize that: (a) the statement of D; (b) the injury diagnosis certificate of D; (c) the body photo of the injury; (d) the telephone conversation between the Defendant and D’s spouse alone existed at the date and time and place indicated in the facts charged; (b) the degree of the body is to be deemed to have reached the degree of the Defendant’s breach of duty of care as described in the facts charged; and (c) the body is to be deemed to have reached the degree of the Defendant’s breach of duty of care as described in the facts charged; and (b) there is no evidence to prove otherwise.