The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant’s galle dust (hereinafter “the instant galle dust”) placed on the victim C (hereinafter “victim”) is 110 cm in length. The Defendant’s galle dust (hereinafter “the instant galle dust”), regardless of its material or material, is very cut or not good in light of the characteristics of the galle dust. In particular, as in the instant case, the Defendant’s galle dust is naturally anticipated to cause harm to the life or body of the victim, and thus, the galle dust of this case constitutes dangerous objects.

(2) The Defendant’s act constitutes a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapon, etc.) since the Defendant collected brugs in this case and added brugs to the victim, and the fact that an injury was inflicted upon the victim under such circumstances is recognized.

(3) Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the grounds of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.). Accordingly, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on dangerous goods of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of a deadly weapon, etc.

B. As to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a misunderstanding of misunderstanding of Facts, etc.), in light of the following: (a) the victim, H, I, and J investigative agencies to the effect that “the defendant has taken the head of the victim by saluting him/herself; (b) each statement is consistent; (c) G is likely to make a favorable statement to the defendant because he/she was committed by the defendant; and (d) appears to have reversed the statement in the court after the victim agreed with the defendant; (b) although the defendant can be recognized the fact that the head of the victim was saluted by saluting him/her, the court below recognized the criminal facts different from the