The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

except that the ruling shall be made for one year from the date of the final judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts on April 2, 2014, the Defendant was found to have taken one-time face in the process of disputing the victim. However, there is no fact that flap is flap with the victim’s face or flap with hacks. 2) In relation to the fact of special assault, the Defendant did not have any fact that the victim was flap around April 4, 2014, which is the date of the instant crime, and there is no fact that the Defendant assaulted the victim with a knife, which is a deadly weapon.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, probation, social service, 120 hours) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is too heavy or unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor tried ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio; the prosecutor's name of "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective violence, a deadly weapon, etc.)" against the defendant in the trial of the court; and "Articles 3(1), 2(1)1, and 260(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act" in the applicable provisions of Articles 261 and 260(1) of the Criminal Act "an application for amendment to a bill of amendment to the contents of each change was filed; since this court permitted the amendment, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any longer.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

B. On April 2, 2014, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts regarding injury, namely, ① the victim from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, to the court of the lower court, stated that “I were the same as E.,” and “I were at the same time E, after talking about what he did. I were at the same time. I were at the time flick and face.”