The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant only sealed the victim E’s optical bones, but did not charge the victim who suffered from drinking.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The Defendant, with a stone with a stone, fluoring the part of the victim D’s left cover, did not have a fluorgize the victim’s upper head with a fluorial knife.

In addition, the defendant's unloading of the victim's abundance is a legitimate defense that the victim's concealment is forced to escape from a certain situation.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence, observation of protection, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Upon ex officio determination, the prosecutor filed an application for changes in the contents of the crime with "Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.)" as "special injury" among the names of the crimes in the first instance, and "Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" as "Article 258-2 (1) 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", and since this court permitted this and thereby changed the subject of the judgment, this part of the judgment below was rejected.

Therefore, the lower court deemed this part of the crime and the rest of the crime as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and sentenced to one punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Accordingly, the lower court’s judgment cannot be maintained in its entirety.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of the above facts is still subject to the judgment of the court.