The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months) that the court below sentenced against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, and at the trial of the case, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with the content that "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.)" is "damage and Damage to Special Property" and "Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 366(1) of the Criminal Act" changed the applicable provisions to "Articles 369(1) and 366 of the Criminal Act" from "Article 369(1) and Article 366 of the Criminal Act" among the names of the crimes of this case. Since

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

[C] The summary of the facts of the crime of this case and the defendant's summary of the evidence of the crime of this case are the same as that of each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369

Application of Statutes

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 369 (1) or 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of destroying and damaging special objects and the choice of imprisonment) of the relevant criminal facts;

1. Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years;

2. The current sentencing criteria do not apply to the crime of destroying and damaging special goods, since it is not prosecuted after July 1, 2015 whether the sentencing criteria are applied or not.

3. The fact that the Defendant made a confession of the instant crime and reflects his mistake, and that the Defendant agreed with the victim E, who is the registered titleholder of the damaged vehicle, was favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant is sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor due to assault and bodily injury against D.