The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined the case ex officio, and the prosecutor requested to change the name of the crime of this case to "special injury" from "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)" and "Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" in "Article 258-2 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" in "Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act. Since this court permitted this and changed to the subject of the judgment, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument about sentencing, and the judgment below is ruled as follows through pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court are the same as the corresponding columns of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Articles 258-2(1) and 257(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts was committed by the defendant with food knife and part of the victim's left part without any specific reason, and was very dangerous act in light of the criminal implements and sludge, etc. of the victim. As a result, the victim was actually undermining the victim's left part due to flifeing of the same knife and gal, and was under surgery, and was under flife operation. The defendant was arrested for more than five years after the crime of this case, and the victim was punished by the victim because he did not agree with the victim, etc. is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, this case.