The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and improper sentencing)

A. According to the victim’s statement, diagnosis statement, photograph, etc., the court below found the Defendant guilty on September 8, 2014, while recognizing that the Defendant inflicted an injury as described in the facts charged, as stated in the J on September 8, 2014.

B. The sentence of the lower court (three years of probation, observation of protection, and community service 200 hours in February of one year and two months of one year) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio before determining the grounds for appeal.

With respect to intimidation of carrying dangerous articles among the facts charged in the instant case at the trial of the party, the prosecutor applied the applicable law to “special intimidation” under Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act to “Articles 284 and 283(1) of the Criminal Act,” and applied law to “Article 284 of the Criminal Act,” and applied law to change the same to “Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act.” This court permitted this.

Since the above crime and the rest of the judgment of the court below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be sentenced, the conviction part among the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

3. The Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is still subject to the judgment of this court, and thus, the examination is conducted on the ground that there is a ground for ex officio reversal as seen above.

The police officer M, who observed the site at the time, appeared as a witness in the trial court at the time, and tried to see that he was in the same way the J, which was written on the floor by the defendant.

was stated.

However, in the report prepared by M on September 10, 2014, when he/she went out of the police box by extinguishing out of his/her service, the fighting has already been completed.

The defendant was under the situation of driving away from the court, and JJ.