All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., e., e. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and 6 months) that the court below rendered is too unreasonable.

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

In the case of appeal against the judgment below, the appeal case against the defendant was combined, and each of the offenses against the judgment of the court below against the defendant is concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, a single sentence shall be imposed within the scope of the punishment aggravated for concurrent offenses in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be exempted

3. The judgment below reversed all of the judgment below under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds that the above reasons for reversal of authority as seen earlier exist, and further decided as follows.

[Discied Reasons for the Judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by this Court and summary of evidence are as stated in the corresponding columns of the judgment of the court below.

(Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Application of law

1. Relevant Articles 136(1) and 258-2(1) and 257(1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of punishment (the point of inflicting bodily injury on carrying dangerous articles);

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. Among concurrent offenders, the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act have served as 10 times as violent crimes, etc., and again committed the instant crime during the period of the obstruction of performance of official duties and the repeated offense due to the injury.

In addition, the defendant received family protective disposition four times from around 2017 to March 2019 due to domestic violence committed against the victim D, who is the defendant's wife, but is not aware of it, and the victim was injured by the victim's head as a dangerous good, and the victim was dispatched upon reporting domestic violence.