1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one and half years;

3.Provided, That this judgment has become final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (a prison term of three years of suspended execution in two years and six months of imprisonment, and a community service order of 80 hours of imprisonment) declared by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. On July 28, 200, prior to the prosecutor’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the prosecutor tried to examine the facts charged in the instant case by applying Article 3(2) and (1) of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 7891, Mar. 24, 2006; hereinafter the same) and Article 257(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act to the prosecution. On October 28, 2014, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of three years and 80 hours of imprisonment, by applying the said Article.

However, Article 3(2) of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, Etc. (amended by Act No. 7891 of Mar. 24, 2006), which was enforced after the instant indictment was instituted, was deleted, which is a provision punishing a crime under Article 3(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, Etc., which was enforced at night, and such provision constitutes a case where a sentence is abolished due to the amendment of the Act

Thus, the court below should have convicted the defendant of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (a collective injury with deadly weapons, etc.) due to an injury to carry dangerous articles included in the facts charged of this case, and should have judged that the facts charged of this case is acquitted pursuant to Article 326 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which neglected this can no longer be maintained.

B. On the other hand, the prosecutor applied for the change of the previous applicable provisions of law to "Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Articles 257 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act," and this court changed the subject of adjudication by permitting the change, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained even in this respect.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is based on the above reasons for ex officio reversal.