A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Seized No. 2018 No. 1106.

A. Defendant 1) Fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal principles (the judgment of the court below No. 1) are the facts that the Defendant was suffering from booming, but there was no assault against the victim D due to blue blue blue, and the above victim was injured by blue blue of blue with his own arms.

B) Even if the Defendant committed an assault against the victim due to brue

Even if the above victim's act is an urgent escape to avoid any danger to the body of E in an imminent situation where he loses consciousness by breathing eth.

2) Improper sentencing (the sentence of the lower court No. 1: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and the sentence of the lower court No. 2: fine of five million won)

B. Sentencing by prosecutors (as to the judgment of the court below of the second instance),

2. As to the Defendant’s judgment ex officio, the first and second judgments of the lower court were rendered, the Defendant filed an appeal against the second and second lower judgment, and the Prosecutor decided to jointly deliberate on the said cases.

Each of the lower judgment’s offenses against the Defendant is related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and as seen below, the multiple-choice imprisonment with prison labor for the special assault crime of Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, which was appealed by both parties, should be sentenced to one sentence pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

On the other hand, the judgment of the court of first instance, despite the above reasons for reversal, is still subject to the judgment of the court of this case, since the defendant's mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles are still subject to

3. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can fully recognize the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim D due to the erobbbrosis.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court duly adopted it.