The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the upper part of the victim's head was not caused by the defendant's own injury, rather than by the defendant's own injury. While each item of this case was at the time of the victim's selling part of each item, since each item of this case cannot be viewed as a dangerous object, the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (injury to group deadly weapons, etc.) cannot be established. Thus, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the prosecutor tried to examine the defendant's name of the crime at the trial of the party, as "special injury" from "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group deadly weapon, etc.)", and the applicable law applied to "Articles 3 (1), 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" in "Article 258-2 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act," and "Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act," and the judgment of the court below was changed to the subject of the judgment by permitting it. Thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.

3. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below, in particular, the victim's standing photographs, internal investigation reports (related to telephone conversations and the suspect's contactability with the victim), and the following circumstances, namely, ① on June 14, 2015, on the victim's photograph, which appears to have been taken on June 14, 2015, the date of the instant case, the victim's photograph, the victim's sensium, and the victim's photograph, which seems to have been taken on the victim's sensium and the math part (which seems to have been taken on the victim's goods), and there is a hole on the left part.