We reverse the judgment of the court below.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the crime of the second instance judgment, committed a misunderstanding of facts (with regard to the judgment of the second instance), did not cause a breath of the victim’s head. However, there was no fact that the victim’s head was committed.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the second court which found guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the first and second instances of unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 3 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio judgment, the first and second judgments were rendered to the defendant, and the defendant filed an appeal against them, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings. Each of the crimes in the first and second judgments against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the first and second judgments cannot be maintained.

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

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the second instance court on the argument of mistake of facts, especially the witness J’s legal statement, the defendant was found to have committed assaulting twice the head of the victim J within the previous 200:20 on April 28, 2015, by taking the breath of the victim J within the previous 20:20 on April 28, 2015. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is rejected.

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, on the ground that there is a ground for ex officio reversal as seen above, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

Criminal facts recognized by the court as well as the summary of the evidence.