The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) in F's investigative agency and the lower court's statements, and video images taken at the time of the axis of this case, the defendant's act constitutes an act of anti-violation equivalent to intention, and the degree of exercise of the defendant's tangible power is significant, thereby violating the duty of care to ensure the safety of the body of the players engaged in competition with the sports rules, as it goes against the duty of care to ensure the safety of the players' body by complying with the sports rules.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. According to the various circumstances revealed by the court below, while the university team belonging to the defendant and the complainant belonging to the university team of the defendant as part of the "E" festival of this case, the court below determined that the accident of this case was caused by the defendant's bodily injury after the complainant's consent to the defendant's left hand after the complainant's consent to the game, and the accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's non-violation of the sports rules or minor violation of the rules naturally expected to have been caused by the nature of the stable competition, and it was determined that the accident of this case was caused by ordinary level of display that does not go beyond the scope of social reasonableness, and it was difficult to recognize the defendant's negligence only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

B. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the various circumstances presented by the court below.