2. The judgment of the court below is against the defendant when he committed the crime of this case. The damage amount to the crime of this case was not significant since the defendant committed the crime of this case was favorable to the defendant. However, the result was significant due to the victim's crime of this case's bodily injury, since the defendant had been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor, suspension of execution of imprisonment, and fine several times due to an act of violence, etc., and on February 8, 2012, the Seoul East East District Court sentenced two years of suspended sentence to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.) at the Seoul East District Court on the same day as of February 8, 2012, the above judgment became final and conclusive on February 16, 2012, and again committed the crime of this case without being informed of the fact that the defendant did not agree with the victim, the defendant did not endeavor to recover damage. The court below seems to have taken into account all the above favorable circumstances, and it appears that the defendant's motive of the above crime of this case's bodily change was invalid.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, among the judgment of the court below, the applicable provisions of the Act on Criminal Procedure clearly state that "the choice of punishment is omitted" in the following. Thus, it is clear that "the choice of punishment is omitted," and thus, it is ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.