The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles [the part concerning the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Assaults such as group, deadly weapons, etc.)] by the Defendant did not have any fact of being scamed by the victim, and the beer’s disease does not constitute dangerous articles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the prosecutor tried to examine the facts charged in the instant case ex officio, and in accordance with the purport of the judgment of remanding, the prosecutor applied Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, “Article 261 and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act” in the applicable law, “Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act,” respectively, to “Article 261 and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act,” and since this court permitted this and changed the same, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. 1) The Defendant led to the confession of the facts constituting an offense in this part in the court of original instance, but denies this by the reversal in the court of original instance.

As to the credibility of a confession made by the defendant in the court of original instance, in determining the credibility of a confession, whether the content of the confession itself objectively rational, what is the motive or reason of the confession, and what is the background leading to the confession, and whether there is any conflict or conflict with the confession among the circumstances other than the confessions, it should be considered whether there is a situation to give reasonable doubts to the grounds prescribed in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or to the motive or process of the confession.