The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Of the facts charged of this case, the crime of assault is committed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendant with mental or physical disorder was committed in a state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness by drinking alcohol.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the defendant's grounds for appeal prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the crime of assault is a crime falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the same Act. The victim G withdraws his/her wish to punish the Defendant on September 22, 2015, prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the lower court after the prosecution of the instant case. As such, this part of the indictment ought to be dismissed pursuant to Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged and taken this into account as mitigation element of punishment. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of non-compliance with the intention of expression, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant's argument about the defendant's mental and physical disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court even though there is a ground for reversal under the judgment as to the defendant's mental and physical disorder, and according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant had been under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the crimes of this case, but in light of the circumstance, means, content and method of each of the crimes of this case, circumstances before and after the crime of this case, it is not deemed that the defendant had the ability to discern things

3. If so, the judgment of the court below is without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, since there is a ground for reversal ex officio as above.