The part of the judgment below against the defendant except the dismissed part of the prosecution shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the fact-finding, the court below acquitted the defendant on the charge of assaulting the victim N despite the fact that the defendant carried a dangerous object by carrying a beer disease. The court below erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (a punishment of one year and six months of imprisonment, a suspended sentence of three years, and a community service order of 80 hours) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio the Defendant’s name as “special injury”; “Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)” as “special assault”; and “Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)” under the applicable law, “Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act” under the applicable law, “Article 258-2(1) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act” was “Article 3(1) and Article 257(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 260(1)1 of the Criminal Act; Article 260(1)6 of the same Act was “the crime of assault against the victim” and Article 261(2)6 of the Criminal Act.

“A person who assaultss a beer, which is a dangerous object, of her disease.”

"Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment" was filed, and since this Court permitted it, it became subject to the adjudication, the remaining parts of the judgment below against the defendant except the dismissed part of the judgment below cannot be maintained.

Meanwhile, on October 2, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for the crime of destroying property at the Seoul Central District Court on June 2, 201, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 11, 2014. On the other hand, the Defendant’s violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) against the Defendant and the crime of destroying property for which judgment became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act.