The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) As to the instant case [Attachment 2016 Height 1918] as indicated in the lower judgment, the Defendant did not assault the Defendant by driving a vehicle as indicated in the facts charged in a manner that knees of the victim or knee of the victim’s chest.

2) As to the instant case [2016 Highest 2437] case, the Defendant did not have the intention of larceny on the ground that the Defendant brought a complaint in relation to a tort committed by the victim and brought it out to be submitted in documentary evidence.

B. As to the case of Ho-ho, the lower court’s holding that the Defendant committed an act identical to the entries in the facts charged to defend the victims’ unlawful attack, and thus, the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense, and thus, dismissed the illegality.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of ex officio judgment, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and two months of imprisonment by obstructing the performance of official duties by the District Court on September 30, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 15, 2016. Each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty and the crimes in the judgment of the court below which became final and conclusive on December 15, 2016 are concurrent crimes in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment for the crimes in the judgment of the court below should be determined in consideration of equity in the case where it is judged simultaneously pursuant to the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard,

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court. Therefore, this paper examines the change of the provisions in this regard.

B. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the case of No. 2016, the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts (2016 high group 1918), the Defendant is above.