The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

For the purpose of disposables containing any white substance seized.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the crime of injury of this case by mistake of fact, the Defendant did not see the victim under each item at the time, and did not see each item.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

In the first instance trial, the prosecutor applied for the modification of the indictment with the phrase “violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.)” as “special injury,” and the phrase “Article 3(1), Article 2(1)3, and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act” as “Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act” as “Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act,” among the names of the crimes related to the facts charged in the instant case. Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained in this respect.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to a trial by this court, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, and this is examined below.

B. The court below rejected the above assertion in detail by stating the defendant's assertion and its judgment in the summary column of the evidence, after having presented the same argument as the grounds for appeal. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury upon the victim's face and right hand hand over two weeks in consideration of each dangerous object, as stated in the court below's holding, and thus, the defendant's assertion was rejected to this effect.