The judgment below

Of them, the part of conviction (including the part of innocence) and the part of innocence on April 8, 2012.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal doctrine, Defendant 1’s “portable cleaning machine” as indicated in the charge of special assault around November 201, 2012 and “stilt weather” as indicated in the charge of special assault around October 12, 2014 does not constitute dangerous objects prescribed in the crime of special assault or special bodily injury.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending legal principles in holding that “portable cleaning machine” and “ship winding machine” are dangerous articles prescribed in each of the above crimes (the defendant and the defense counsel does not constitute dangerous articles prescribed in special assault crimes even in the facts charged in this case).

However, the lower court’s judgment did not have determined that the “competence” was a dangerous object, and thus, did not separately determine it). 2) In so doing, the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. On April 8, 2012, a prosecutor 1) made a consistent statement of the victim’s injury (not guilty part in the judgment of the court below) on April 8, 2012, and testified in the court of the court below to the effect that L reversed the statement made by an investigative agency that corresponds to the injury on April 8, 2012 among the facts charged in the instant case, and then received a summary order by confessioning the fact that L made a false testimony in the investigation of perjury and received a summary order for perjury, etc., the court may fully find the Defendant guilty of the injury on April 8, 2012 among the facts charged in the instant case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B) On October 9, 2014, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and by misapprehending the legal principles, which recognized the validity of the head of revocation of the complaint submitted by the defendant and dismissed the charge of assault around October 9, 2014 among the facts charged in this case, although the victim did not express his/her intention not to punish the defendant against the defendant.

C) On November 201, 2012, a special assault was committed on the charge of the instant facts charged, which was November 2012.