The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) With respect to the 2017 Highest 1049 case, the Defendant only carried a knife in order to knife the knife between registers, and did not carry a knife to be used in the crime.

2) The Defendant did not assault the victim in relation to the 2017 Highest 1954 case.

B. Regarding the instant case, there is no specification as to whether the Defendant carried a knife to use for committing a crime under several provisions of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

2) Since the victim expressed his/her intention not to punish the Defendant to the investigation agency regarding the 2017 Highest 1954 case, the judgment dismissing the prosecution against this part of the facts charged should be pronounced.

(c)

The punishment of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. From the trial at the lower court, the Prosecutor sent the name of the crime of the 2017 highest order 1049 case to “violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act”, and the applicable provision of the law to “Article 3(1)2 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act”, and, in the facts charged, read the knife (29cm in length on the blade, 40.5cm in length on the blade, 40.5cm in length) as a hand for about one hour.

As a result, the Defendant carried a dangerous object that could be used in committing a crime without any justifiable reason, the lower court’s judgment was no longer maintained inasmuch as knife knife (29cm in blade, 40cm in blade, knife in knife, knife, knife, knife, and knife for about one hour, and carried with knife, and the Defendant applied for changes in the contents of the judgment by this court’s permission, thereby changing the subject of the judgment.

However, inasmuch as the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles on the 2017 High Order 1954 case is still subject to the judgment of the court, the following is examined.

(b).