The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the victim’s statement and the contents of the medical certificate, etc., it is sufficient to deem that the victim suffered bodily injury due to the crime of this case, but the court below acquitted the victim of the injury on the ground of the judgment below, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant was able to obtain a written diagnosis that corresponds to the body and degree of the injury indicated in the facts charged at the hospital after the instant crime; (b) however, E, a doctor who examined the victim and issued the written diagnosis, did not conduct a public examination other than the general diagnosis, such as the injury caused by the symptoms of the victim; (c) the E, a doctor who provided the written diagnosis, stated 21 days as the expected treatment period of the victim on the medical certificate, would normally be 21 days in cases where the victim complained of the her ability and the her ability to her ability to her ability to her face after two trauma; and (c) determined that the victim did not wish to her face her face and her her face her face her face and her part her face her face her face her face; and (d) the victim did not have any physical and functional disorder to the victim; and (e) the victim was naturally able to cure the victim without any other special treatment.

B. The following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, which were revealed by the court below’s judgment, are ① the Defendant’s chief executive officer of the vehicle.