The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing this part of the crime.

B. The Defendant did not assault the victim as stated in this part of the facts constituting a crime.

C. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unlimited and unfair.

[Defendant and Defendant’s defense counsel asserted misconception of facts on March 17, 2015, which was after the expiry of the lawful period for submitting the appellate brief, that all Paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below did not have habituality of assault. However, there is no such assertion in the appellate brief and each written statement of grounds for appeal submitted within the period for submitting the appellate brief, and even if matters not included in the appellate brief submitted within the period for submitting the appellate brief are stated in the appellate court, it cannot be deemed that there are grounds for appeal as alleged in the statement (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do1234, Sept. 22, 1998). This part of Defendant’s assertion cannot be deemed to have been included in the grounds for appeal, and even if ex officio examination is conducted, the above

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the prosecutor tried ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment concerning the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (Habitual Violence) against the defendant during the following criminal facts (the changed criminal facts). Since this court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, despite such reasons for ex officio reversal, the grounds for appeal as to mental and physical disability of the defendant who is not contrary to such reasons are still subject to the judgment of this court, and thus, the defendant's above is changed.