The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by a year of imprisonment.

However, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant case, Defendant (1)’s act of the Defendant at the time of the misunderstanding of the fact is likely to have been caused by the Defendant’s reflector in the process of fighting the victim’s body with the victim at the time of the first instance, when the Defendant was in a dispute with the victim, at least twice as the head of the victim left the vehicle, and the victim left the vehicle at the time of the accident, and thereafter, the victim left the vehicle in the vehicle in excess of the Defendant’s vehicle and left the vehicle in excess of the Defendant’s vehicle. However, the wife suffered from the victim is likely to have been caused by the Defendant’s reflector in the process of fighting with the victim at the time of the first instance.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the concurrent crime of assault and bodily injury and special intimidation guilty of the injury to carry with a deadly weapon other than this, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of suspended sentence for two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the name of the defendant as "special injury" in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.). Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act "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 Since the court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained in this respect.

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

B. The following are acknowledged based on the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts: