The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the crime described in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, the defendant did not possess any son at the time when he was guilty of the fact, or did not have any son’s lock, with respect to the crime described in paragraph (2) of the same Article, the defendant did not assault the victim by using walth and excessive walth, while the defendant did not exercise physical power as a class 6 disabled person, such as balthing or spreading the victim’s face with walth, and did not inflict any injury on the victim by balthing the victim’s face.

Nevertheless, it is unreasonable for the court below to find that each of the facts charged of this case is recognized only by the unilateral statement of the victim who is not favorable to the defendant and the statement of injury diagnosis, etc.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

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

In this court, the prosecutor applied Article 3 (1) and (2) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act to "Article 258-2 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" as "special injury" among the names of the crimes committed in this court, and the applicable law to "Article 3 (1) and (2) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" were amended to "Article 258-2 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act," respectively, and this court was changed to the subject of the judgment.

B. As the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.), and sentenced to a single punishment by treating the instant building as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the crime of special assault, etc., the entire lower judgment was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.