The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that this judgment.

A. The grounds for appeal by the prosecutor are as follows: (i) the source of the 60 million won was the issue in the civil procedure where the defendant testified by mistake of facts as to the above evidence; (ii) the transfer from the E’s account to the Defendant’s account; and (iii) the transfer of the security loan from the Defendant’s account to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant to the Defendant’s account; and (iv) the transfer of the 40 million won was a major issue in the previous lawsuit that the Defendant raised against D; and (v) the Defendant alleged that D was a litigation fraud in the course of investigation, the lower court erred by misapprehending the objective facts, even though it may be deemed that the Defendant had the intent of perjury and made a statement different from the objective facts.

In light of the fact that the risk of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Illegal Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury by deadly weapons, etc.), the fact that no agreement is made with the victim, and the fact that perjury is found guilty, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below (a year and six months of imprisonment and a year of suspended execution) is too low and unfair.

B. The Defendant’s grounds of appeal (i.e., violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective action, deadly weapons, etc.) committed a knife with a view to harming the victim D by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act. The victim suffered an injury regardless of the knife knife while the said Defendant was verbally said. There is no causation between the Defendant’

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles in the judgment of the court below due to excessive expansion of punishment laws and regulations, which recognized that the court below committed an injury by carrying dangerous articles.

The court below held that the injury suffered by the victim of unreasonable sentencing is minor in terms of knife and tension, and there was no injury suffered by knife, and that there was no other dispute over the extent not exceeding the scope of the married couple's fighting between the defendant and the victim at the time.