The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the facts charged of the instant injury, the court below found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the injury of the victim was not recognized to have been caused by the Defendant’s injury, but it should be deemed that there is sufficient credibility in the victim’s statement that the victim suffered the injury from the Defendant, as well as that there is possibility that the victim may be an injury to the victim from the bruption, even if the injury was simply broken off. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. The following circumstances are acknowledged by the court below's decision and the trial court's consistent examination of the evidence legitimately adopted and examined. (1) In this case where the defendant's assertion and the contents of the complaint conflict with each other, the defendant consistently asserted that "D was "at least 3 months after the occurrence of the case, even though it was true that D was in close contact with D, it did not reach the degree of injury," and that D, through E, submitted a written complaint at the investigation stage to the court below, made consistent statements about the background or situation of the injury, presence of witness, etc., and it is difficult to believe it; (2) D submitted a written complaint at the request of E, stating that "it was only submitted without reading the written complaint prepared by E without reading it; and (3) the defendant testified that he had no agreement with the defendant at the time of his own inquiry, and that the defendant's testimony was "at least 40% after the occurrence of the case's testimony" (Article 331-41 of the Criminal Procedure Act.