Of the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant, the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective or deadly weapon).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant has committed a mistake of facts only when he was the victim due to food, and there is no fact that he was the victim under each item, which is a dangerous object.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, fine of 300,000 won, community service order 120 hours, probation) is too unreasonable.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor filed an application for changes in indictment with respect to the name of the crime of bodily injury carried with a deadly weapon among the facts charged in the instant case to "special injury" in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury with a deadly weapon, etc.) and "Articles 3 (1), 2 (1) 3, and 257 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act" as "Articles 258-2 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" in "Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act". Since this court permitted this and changed the subject of adjudication, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant in violation of the Punishment of Violences,

However, even if there are reasons to reverse ex officio, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. On February 8, 2015, the Defendant, at around 19:00 on February 19, 2015, was assaulted by the victim A (the age of 53) within the YYF and within the “G office,” and the Defendant asserted that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, i.e., the victim’s face at a time, and the victim’s face at a time via drinking, each item ( approximately 40cm in length), which is a dangerous object at the same time, on a one-time basis, on a one-time basis, at approximately four weeks of treatment.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by integrating the evidence in its judgment.

C. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.