The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

Seized evidence No. 1 shall be confiscated.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment and confiscation) on the summary of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant before determining ex officio.

Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter “former Punishment of Violences”) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts of the judgment, the lower court respectively applied Articles 6, 3(1), and 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act with respect to criminal facts of the judgment.

In this regard, Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences Act, which provide for punishment of a person who commits an injury by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles with a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles as of January 6, 2016 under the Act on the Punishment of Violences, Etc., was deleted, and Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act, which provides that a person who commits an injury with a dangerous article shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than ten years, was newly established. Since this appears to be the amendment of the Act based on the reflective consideration that the previous sentencing was too serious, the former Punishment of Violences cannot be applied to the facts charged pursuant to Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act, and since this provision cannot be applied to this case’s special crime under Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act without any further amendment of the Criminal Act (Article 258(2) of the same Act).

On the other hand, the court below committed the above crimes and the remaining crimes.