A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined the case ex officio, and the prosecutor requested to change the name of the crime of this case to "special injury" from "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)" and "Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" in "Article 258-2 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" in "Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act. Since this court permitted this and changed to the subject of the judgment, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the evidence and the summary of the judgment of the court below other than changing “1. Part of the Defendant’s testimony in court” to “1. Defendant’s trial testimony in court” as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Articles 258-2 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of quantity is that the crime of this case was committed by the defendant, taking into account the following factors: (a) the method of crime is dangerous; (b) the injury of the victim is serious in light of the victim’s injury level and degree; (c) the defendant was unable to agree with the victim until the trial; and (d) the defendant was punished several times for the same kind of crime.