The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are reasonable to deem that the Defendant had a lid from one’s own material, which is a dangerous object, was left behind the wall where the victim sits, and that there was an injury of the victim by protruding the shoulder of the victim. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant had dolus negligence in the injury of the victim.

B. Although the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the recognition of the reduced fact does not recognize the defendant's willful negligence, the fact that the defendant was lided from his own material toward the victim constitutes violence. This is within the scope recognized as identical to the act of assault, and there is no substantial disadvantage in exercising the defendant's right to defense. Thus, the court below should have found the defendant guilty of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.) ex officio even without going through the amendment procedure in the indictment.

2. The prosecutor of the amendment to the indictment for the trial at the time of the trial, while maintaining the facts in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective action, deadly weapon, etc.) as the primary charge, and subsequently applying for the amendment to the indictment with the same contents as the statement in the name of the crime, Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 2-1 of the indictment as stated in the facts charged, and Article 2-3(1) of the same Act as stated in the facts charged, respectively, were added to the subject of the trial by the court.