Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for four months.

However, the period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

2. We examine the defendant's reasons for appeal ex officio prior to judgment.

In the trial of the case, the prosecutor applied for permission to amend the Bill of Amendment to the Bill of Indictment to the effect that “the number of days of treatment cannot be identified” of the fifth part of the facts charged in the instant case is “necessary for approximately six weeks’ treatment,” and the court granted permission.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows, without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, on the ground that the above reasons for reversal are reversed ex officio.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts constituting a crime and the evidence acknowledged by this court is as follows: (a) the summary of the judgment below’s criminal facts and the summary of the evidence changed the phrase “the number of days of treatment” under the second 19th page of the judgment below to “the number of days of treatment is unknown”; and (b) the summary of the evidence added the phrase “the result of inquiry into facts with respect to Busan National University Hospital which was deliberated on January 1, 200” to “the result of inquiry into facts” as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below; and (c) thus, it is cited as it is

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 268 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment without prison labor;

1. The crime of this case was committed on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (hereinafter referred to as “the circumstances favorable to the defendant”), which led the defendant to suffer bodily injury necessary for approximately six weeks’ medical treatment due to the occurrence of an accident by negligence in violation of the duty to provide safety education to the seafarers as the captain, and to take the direction into account the scene, and the crime was committed in light of the substance of the crime, and the victim’s injury was relatively heavy.

However, the defendant depthed the mistake while making a confession of the crime of this case.