The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

except that, for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Improper sentencing on the gist of reasons for appeal: The sentence of the lower court (two and half years of imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of two years and six months, and two years of short-term) is too unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

A prosecutor shall apply for permission to amend an indictment with the content that he/she changes the facts charged in the trial as follows, and this court permitted it and thus the subject of the judgment differs from the original judgment. Therefore, the original judgment cannot be maintained any more in this respect.

On December 26, 2012, the defendant was subject to a disposition to forward juvenile protection cases due to the continued assault, etc. at the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor's Office.

“The Defendant was subject to a disposition to forward juvenile protection cases on December 26, 2012 by the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, due to the continued assault, etc., and on July 25, 2016, the Daejeon District Court sentenced the Defendant to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for an injury, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 20, 2016.

Article 2(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, Etc.: Article 2(1)3 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, Etc.; Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act to the effect that “Article 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257(2) of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.” is amended as “Article 264 and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act”; Article 3(1) and Article 2(2) of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. shall be amended as “special injury” from “violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)” to “Article 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act to the effect that Article 258-2(1) and (2) of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Violence, etc. is amended as “Article 257(1) of the Act.”

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is without merit since there is a ground for reversal of authority as above.