The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant misunderstanding the fact was not a party to the glass cup because he left the victim F, and there was no intention to injure the victim.

In addition, the injury to the part of the first part that one victim suffered is not caused by the defendant's act, but caused by the king.

B. Legal doctrine-misunderstanding of the legal doctrine cannot be said to be a dangerous thing.

(c)

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

2. An ex officio judgment prosecutor filed an application for changes in the name of the crime concerning the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) at the trial of the party, and the applicable legal provision "Article 3 (1), 2 (1) 3, and Article 257 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act," which read "Article 258-2 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act," with the content that "Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act," and this court permitted such changes, and the above crime and special assault as stated in the judgment of the court below should be sentenced to a concurrent crime as defined in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. We examine the judgment of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. The defendant and defense counsel at the court below asserted the same as the grounds for appeal of this case at the court below, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail with the defense counsel's assertion under the title "determination of the defendant and defense counsel's assertion" in the judgment. In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to dangerous goods in special injury, which affected the conclusion of

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's status.