The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under Article 262 of the Criminal Act, with respect to the crime of bodily harm caused by special assault, which the lower court found guilty by misapprehending the legal doctrine, the punishment shall be determined in accordance with the example of special bodily injury under Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act. Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act provides only imprisonment, and the penalty is not prescribed in the selection of fines.

Nevertheless, as to the injury caused by special assault in this case, the lower court did not follow the example of special bodily injury under Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act, but, instead, elected a fine and sentenced the Defendant to a fine under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 257 of the Act applicable to the injury

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case where sentencing is unfair, the sentence of a fine of KRW 1.5 million imposed by the court below against the defendant is too uneasible.

2. Determination as follows: (a) The crime of bodily injury resulting from special assault in this case is a crime committed after the establishment of Article 258-2 of the Criminal Act; and (b) when the crime of assault, continued existence, or special assault in Article 262 of the Criminal Act causes death or injury to a person by committing the crime of assault in this case, punishment shall be imposed in accordance with Articles 257 through 259 of the Criminal Act, which is the provision on the crime of bodily injury, and in particular does not exclude the application of Article 258-2 of the Criminal Act; and (c) the crime of bodily injury resulting from special assault in this case, even if punished in accordance with Article 258-2 of the Criminal Act

In light of the fact that the prosecutor's act of causing a special assault of this case at his discretion is not likely to be seen as having been punished under the precedent of Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, not Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, but Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, and so long as the crime of causing a special assault of this case is found guilty, it is reasonable to view that the prosecutor cannot be punished by applying Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act without changing

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of misapprehension is justified.

3. Conclusion.