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

103,00 won shall be collected from the defendant.

A. misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant: (a) misunderstanding the victim’s intent to take his money or drive a retaliation; and (b) obtained the distance from the victim by driving a motor vehicle to get out of the job; and (c) sustained an injury on the motor vehicle to prevent the occurrence of the injury.

Therefore, this constitutes an erroneous defense, and the intention of injury can not be recognized.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty of 2 years of imprisonment, 103,00 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Upon ex officio determination, the lower court applied Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act with regard to the part of the facts charged in the instant case, which inflicted an injury on the victim as a dangerous object.

In this regard, according to the Punishment of Violences Act amended on January 6, 2016, the above provision, which stipulates that a person who committed an injury by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous object shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for more than three years, was deleted. On the same day, Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, which stipulates that a person who committed an injury by carrying a dangerous object shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for more than one year, but not more than ten years, was newly established. In light of the circumstances leading to the amendment of the above Act, etc., it can be deemed that in light of the fact that the previous statutory punishment was too bad, this part of the facts charged cannot be applied any more, and Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, which provides that the former Punishment of Violences, shall be applied.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the defendant's argument of misunderstanding the legal principles is still subject to the court's trial, so it is examined as follows.

B. misunderstanding of legal principles