The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.

A. In light of the victim's statement, etc. that conforms to the facts charged in mistake, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the defendant sufficiently recognized the defendant's head and inflicted injury on the victim's head, like the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. Although it is recognized that the defendant was not guilty of the victim's head due to the fact that the defendant was in danger of the defendant, according to the victim's statement, etc., the defendant is sufficiently recognized, and thus, the defendant should be found guilty of the crime of bodily injury or bodily injury in relation to the above special injury crime. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the recognition of the reduction of the fact

2. Ex officio determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for the amendment to indictment.

A prosecutor: (a) as the name of the crime in the trial of a political party is “injury caused by violence” from “special injury”; (b) as the applicable provisions of the law in Articles 258-2(1), 257(1), and 35 of the Criminal Act, “Articles 262, 260(1), and 35 of the Criminal Act”; and (c) as the facts charged, “the defendant is the defendant at the right side of the main bend to the main bend to the 7974, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, 13:02, around November 13:02, 2018, when the victim B (54 years old) is the defendant’s seat, he sawd the victim’s b., while leaving the b., 16cc. and 35 minutes above the victim’s head, the victim’s head, who was at the bottom of the 17.7 p.m.