The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

except that this shall not apply.

The summary of the reasons for appeal (unfair sentencing) is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too uneasy and unfair.

We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.

For the purpose of this case, the prosecutor to revise the indictment was in the trial of the defendant, "Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.)" Eul in the name of the crime in this case, and "Article 3 (1), 2 (1) 1, and Article 260 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act" in the applicable law were amended to "Article 261 and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act," respectively, and this court permitted the revision and changed to the subject of the judgment.

The lower court amended the statute and applied Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act with regard to the Defendant’s crime against Victim E.

In this regard, Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which provides that the punishment of a person who commits an injury by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous object as a consequence of the promulgation and enforcement of the Act by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016, was deleted in the part of Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which were punished as imprisonment for a limited term of not less than three years. This ought to be deemed to be the revision of the Act based on the reflective consideration that the previous sentencing was too serious. As such, the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. cannot be applied to the above facts charged, and the special crime of injury under Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act, which was newly established through

Supreme Court Decision 2015Do17907 Decided January 28, 2016 refers to the Supreme Court Decision 2015Do17907 Decided January 28, 2016. Meanwhile, the interpretation and application of statutes are the inherent authority of the court, which is not a public prosecution, and the court is not bound by the law applicable to the indictment written by the prosecutor,