The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Comprehensively taking account of the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) CCTV images and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the statement of the defendant, the victim suffered bodily injury due to the assault by the defendant, and the defendant could have predicted the result of the above bodily injury.

Despite fully recognizing the facts charged, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

Judgment

On January 18, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 23:45, in front of the “G restaurant” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, the Defendant suffered injury, such as the victim B (32 tax) and she was waiting to leave the taxi first; and (b) the damaged person was able to boom the Defendant’s breath, thereby leaving the boomer’s breath, thereby getting the victim booming the 84 days back to the left-hand boom, the lower-standing executive in need of treatment between approximately 84 days.

In light of the following circumstances, the lower court’s judgment did not have reasonable doubt that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that there was a possibility that the Defendant was either pushed up B or the Defendant could have predicted the injury that he suffered beyond B.

It is difficult to see

The decision was determined.

① The Defendant consistently stated at an investigative agency to this court that “the victim was satisfed by having his face fast and bomb,” and that “the victim was satisfed by having fatd and batd, and then has been pushed back, and only satched by satd hand in order to remove fats.”

② The victim stated in the investigative agency that “the Defendant was fighting between the Defendant and the victim while fighting one another, and the Defendant was plucked by plucking, plucking, and plucking on the road bridge because the victim was sloping.” However, in this court, the victim stated that “the Defendant was faced with a road bridge, resulting in breathing and breathing on the bridge of the Defendant, resulting in the injury