The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant misunderstanding the victim E’s face and e-mail with drinking up to 2-3 times, thereby making the victim’s face and e-mail difficult to know the number of days of treatment, and followed the victim’s appearance while excluding the victim and the rooftop in a narrow space.

In this situation, the Defendant, as a matter of course, recognized and accepted the physical power exercise to the extent that he follows the victim’s outbreak.

Since it is reasonable to view this part of the injury, dolusent intention is recognized.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the determination of the assertion of mistake of facts, H, G, and F, a witness, had been observed or heard by the Defendant’s h, G, and F, but the Defendant was not directly viewed as having been injured by the victim E.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted by the lower court, such as the statement of the victim E, etc. of the witness E, the Defendant is able to recognize the fact that the victim’s face and e-mail are closely informed to the victim at least 2-3 times by drinking that the victim did not repay the money, and the fact that the Defendant and the victim followed the victim’s right-handion in a narrow space where the victim intends to do so.

In full view of the circumstances such as the circumstance in which the Defendant appears to have been aware of the victim’s face or appearance after the victim’s assault was terminated, and it appears that the Defendant did not have a big body fighting between the Defendant and the victim during the process of leaving the scene, the Defendant had dolusence on the part of the victim’s injury taking place.

It is difficult to see.