The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Recognizing the fact that the defendant misunderstanding of the fact inflicted an injury on the victim, the defendant and the defense counsel did not have the purpose of retaliation, but withdrawn the assertion of mistake as to the facts associated with the facts charged that "the defendant had taken twice the victim's head at the time of drinking" in accordance with the permission to amend the Bill of Indictment for the Party

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness due to a polar disorder or drinking.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the defendant's grounds for appeal prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal.

A prosecutor applied for amendments to a bill of amendment to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to delete the part of the charges of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against the defendant, "if he/she is taken twice as drinking," and this Court has permitted it and changed the subject of the judgment.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (retaliatory injury, etc.) cannot be maintained as is, and on the other hand, the court below has a concurrent relation

Since a single sentence has been sentenced, the judgment of the court below should be reversed in its entirety.

Despite the above reasons for reversal, the defendant's misunderstanding of facts and his argument of mental and physical weakness are still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant had already asserted the same purport as this part of the judgment below.

After explaining the relevant legal principles, the lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, found that there was the purpose of retaliation at the time of the Defendant’s injury to the victim.

In light of the foregoing, this argument was rejected.

1) The Defendant is “EPC room”.