The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Of the facts charged of this case, assault is committed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and improper sentencing)

A. Since the victim of assault by misunderstanding the legal doctrine expressed his intention to punish, the prosecution against the victims should be dismissed among the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The lower court’s punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court, on July 31, 2017, and August 12, 2017, demanded, at the time of submitting a written agreement to the investigative agency, that the victim does not want punishment more than twice, “the defendant would nursing the victim,” and “the defendant will be deprived and hedging with the victim,” and revealed the purport that he/she would reverse the above intent in the legal testimony of the lower court and want to punish the victim. In so doing, the lower court re-writtened the Defendant in the written application filed on January 30, 2018.

The court did not render a dismissal judgment on the charge of assault and assault. The above remarks were inconsistent, and the victim did not have a strong intention to punish the defendant in the court.

In light of the statement, the application filed on January 30, 2018 is deemed to be aimed at making the defendant not subject to severe punishment while the victim was expected to be jointly tried with the defendant, and thus, the true intention of not subject to severe punishment was expressed.

It seems that it has not been seen.

However, according to the legal statement of the victim at the time of the deliberation of the party, the victim was able to use all the defendants, and the defendant was able to have an interview with each other.

I stated to the effect that punishment is genuine, such as punishment.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the statements made by the said victim, the victim reversed his/her intention to punish him/her on July 31, 2017 and August 12, 2017, but again expressed his/her intention to punish him/her on January 30, 2018.