The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. On June 3, 2013, the summary of the charges of this case, of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury with a deadly weapon, etc.) was that the Defendant: (a) around 12:30 on June 3, 2013, on the alleyway of the above Defendant’s house, the Defendant: (b) on the alleyway of the above Defendant, the victim frights gravel in the alleyway; and (c) on the Defendant, the Defendant “I see that I fright or gravel was dried up; and (d) would have caused the said gravel.” (c) The head, shoulder, and arms of the victim were taken once again, and the head, shoulder, and arms of the victim was dried up to 2.2 meters in length; (d) the victim’s hair was tightly taken over by hand, thereby causing injury, such as brain dynasing, etc. for about three weeks to the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and inflicted an injury on the victim.

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal and the judgment of the court below

A. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (i.e., mistake of facts and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, each statement made by the victim to the investigation agency is admissible as evidence, since it can be sufficiently recognized that the statement was made in a particularly reliable state.

Comprehensively taking account of the above statements of the victim and other evidence, the defendant can be sufficiently convicted of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the above charged facts is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts and evidence rules.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated.

[1] The police officer D's physical therapy room, which is treated by the victim on June 7, 2013, takes the defendant as a physical therapy room, and the victim's children are present.