A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

A seizured one-time injection machine.

가. 사실 오인, 법리 오해( 특수 상해의 점에 대하여) 피고인은 목검으로 피해자의 머리를 때리거나, 과도로 피해자의 허벅지를 찌른 사실이 없고, 다만 손바닥으로 피해자의 머리를 때리고, 과도가 놓여 있던 탁자를 발로 찼는데 과도가 피해자의 허벅지로 떨어졌을 뿐이다.

Therefore, the defendant suffered an injury to the victim by making use of wood inspection or excessive water.

The judgment of the court below 2 is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentencing unfair by the court below (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year, confiscation, collection, and confiscation for 2 years: imprisonment with prison labor for 3 years, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination 1) After the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance on the Defendant, each appeal was filed, and this court decided to consolidate the above two appeals cases.

However, since each crime of the first and second judgment against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment shall be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

2) In addition, after remanding the case, a prosecutor filed an application for changes in the indictment with respect to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) and the applicable legal provisions, among the facts charged in the instant case, to “special injury” and “Article 258-2(1) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act,” and the same court permitted the same, thereby changing the subject of the judgment.

The above facts charged are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the remaining facts charged, and a sentence shall be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below may no longer be maintained in this regard.

3) However, despite the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the Defendant’s mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine still remains this Court.