The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below acknowledged the facts charged that the defendant, who was guilty of the facts, did not correspond to "a dangerous object" as provided by the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.), but caused an injury by using a dangerous object, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the judgment. However, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the period for submitting the appeal was later filed, but the court below decided by misunderstanding the contents of the counsel's written opinion submitted during and before the period, but the same meaning is the same as those of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a group, deadly weapon, etc.

As can be seen, it is judged that it is still maintained even after Amendments to Bill of Indictment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, the prosecutor examined the case ex officio, and the prosecutor applied the name of the crime to "special injury" against the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.), and the applicable provisions of the law to "Article 3 (1), Article 2 (1) 2 and 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257 (1) and Article 35 of the Criminal Act," respectively, to "Article 258-2 (1), Article 257 (1), and Article 35 of the Criminal Act," and applied for amendments to the indictment to "Article 258-2 (1), Article 257 (1), and Article 35 of the Criminal Act," and since this court was subject to the judgment by permitting it, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

Nevertheless, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts is subject to the court’s judgment, and a thorough examination of the records by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, all of the legal principles and circumstances acknowledged by the court below are acceptable. In light of the Defendant’s pentle used by the Defendant or appraisal, the Defendant’s pentle used by the victim is at risk as prescribed by the special crime of injury.