The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Fact misunderstanding: The injured party was able to defend the Defendant by unfolding the door of the cargo onto the train by means of a locked method outside the door of the cargo tower, and the injured party was able to defend him.

Therefore, although the defendant's act constitutes legitimate defense, the court below convicted the defendant by misunderstanding the facts.

2) Illegal sentencing: The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. We examine ex officio prior to judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

A. In a case falling under a case requiring a necessary attorney-at-law under Article 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the first instance trial proceedings have been conducted without a defense counsel, and the examination of evidence and the examination of the defendant has been conducted in such unlawful trial proceedings, all of the procedural acts conducted in such unlawful trial proceedings are null and void. In this case, the appellate court shall reverse the judgment of the first instance which was unlawful after conducting a new procedural act while there is a defense counsel, and render a new judgment based on the results of the trial, such as statement and examination of evidence, etc. at the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do2347, Apr. 25, 1995; 201Do6325, Sept. 8, 2011). The facts charged in the instant case constitute a case requiring imprisonment for more than two years under Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 25(1)3 of the Criminal Act and Article 27 of the Abandonment Act.

According to the records, the court below revised the court without appointing a defense counsel without appointing a defense counsel, and proceeded with the examination of evidence and the examination of the defendant, and found the defendant guilty.