The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

이 사건 공소사실 피고인은 2013. 1. 29. 11:20경 서울 중구 C 앞 노상에서 피해자 D으로부터 그곳 지하층에 임대하고 있던 방문을 열지 못하게 한다는 이유로 항의를 받게 되자 피해자에게 “이 개같은 년아, 이게 네 집이야”라고 하면서 양손으로 피해자의 가슴 부위를 밀어 피해자로 하여금 엉덩방아를 찧고 뒤로 넘어지게 하였다.

As a result, the defendant put the victim with a 20-day treatment for approximately 20 days, such as base base salt, sacrificing, etc.

2. The court below's decision has consistently changed to the purport that the defendant had no fact of harming the victim from the police to the prosecutor's office and the court of original trial, and that the defendant was seated with the defendant's appearance, etc. while the victim was attached to the defendant, and that the defendant would have come back with the defendant's appearance. Among the evidence that correspond to the facts charged in this case, the prosecutor's statement of witness E by the witness E was insufficient in light of the E's statement in the court of original instance that the defendant was unable to see the victim's faceing, and that the victim was present only when the victim was faced with the floor, and that the police, the prosecutor's office, and the court of original judgment were assaulted by the defendant's son on January 26, 2013.

In fact, F filed a complaint with the content that "A" did not allow D to access the house owned by the defendant and used D to assault D. D without permission, asserting the ownership of part of the house owned by the defendant, and continuously invadedd D without permission on the house owned by the defendant, and the cause of conflict between the defendant and the defendant was constantly caused. In fact, D's brupt operation was conducted by the defendant due to the violence of this case. The fact is that D's brupt operation was conducted by a brupt, and another witness G.