All the judgment of the court below are reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1,281,750 won from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the injury of the victim D, it is difficult to see the “a major stage” used by the Defendant as a dangerous object, and it is difficult to see that the two skins suffered by the said victim constituted “injury”. 2) As to the injury of the victim E, the Defendant did not have the head of the said victim due to brooms, and the injury suffered by the said victim was only caused by brooms facing the head of the said victim while brooms go beyond the said victim.

It is difficult to regard the above “broom broom” as a dangerous object.

B. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability on the ground of mental illness, etc.

C. Each sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the judgment of the court of first instance: imprisonment of one year and six months, and the court of second instance: imprisonment of one year, additional collection of 600,000 won, and the judgment of the court of third instance: imprisonment of eight months, additional collection of 681,750 won) is too unreasonable.

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

The court of the first instance decided to consolidate each appeal case against the original judgment.

However, since each of the judgments of the court below against the defendant is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one of these crimes must be sentenced in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Act in the event that it is combined and ruled simultaneously.

Therefore, the decision of the court below cannot be upheld as it is.

3. Despite the above reasons for reversal of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and the above-mentioned reasons for reversal of mental or physical disability, the defendant's misconception of facts, misapprehension of legal principles, and claim of mental or physical disability still belong to the subject of adjudication by

A. (1) Whether the “a dangerous substance” constitutes a “hazardous substance” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is widely a person’s life, even if the “hazardous substance” is not a deadly weapon.