The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Nos. 1 and 2 of seized evidence from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) There is no fact that the Defendant misleads the Defendant into the victim’s head by each item, which is a dangerous thing.

2) The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor in the records of this case, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize the causal relationship between the Defendant’s assault and the injured party’s injury, despite the fact that each item, which is a dangerous object, could sufficiently be recognized that the Defendant d's arms, side glass, and head parts of the victim's d's arms, side glass, and the victim d's hump were cut down at several times and gave approximately eight weeks of urgency medical treatment. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor examined the defendant's appeal ex officio, and the prosecutor applied the defendant's name of the crime and the "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)" among the facts charged as "special injury", and applied law Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act) to "Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc." as "Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act." Since this court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment, the judgment below

B. Judgment 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts, namely, ① the Defendant was at the time of the victim’s selling, side and heading.

The confessions made in the process of the police and the prosecutor's investigation, and the confessions made in question are judged to be reliable in light of the existence, consistency, the circumstances of the statement, etc.