The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by two years of imprisonment.

(2) the date of this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, although the Defendant was a beer’s disease when the head of the Victim E was found, the Defendant merely flicked his body fighting with the victim G, and did not flick the head of the Victim G due to beerick.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years of suspended sentence for two years of imprisonment, two years of community service order 240 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. An ex officio determination prosecutor filed an application for permission to change the name of the crime to “Article 258-2(1) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act” under Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act. Since this court permitted this and changed the name of the crime to be judged, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake of the above facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. (1) The Defendant alleged to the same effect as the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts.

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on this issue on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

(2) The lower court’s determination is justifiable in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court in light of the circumstances cited by the lower court in its judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(A) Upon receipt of the 112 report, police officers entered the main points of the instant case, the entrance floor and the table table of the shouldered soldier and beer bottles were opened, and the victim G was placed on the face, and the victim G was placed on the face.

(B) The victim G, upon receipt of a report, reported to the police officer who received the Defendant’s written test and reported this argument of “this argue is mixed.”