The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the punishment of 10 months sentenced by the court below to the defendant is too unhutiled.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor tried to examine the facts charged of this case ex officio, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the name of the crime in this case to "inflicting and special intimidation" from "violation of the Punishment of Injury and Violence, etc. Act (collectively, Deadly Weapons, etc.)", and the applicable provisions of this Act shall be applied mutatis mutandis from "Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 35, 37, and 38 of the Criminal Act," respectively, and "Articles 257(1), 284, 283(1), 35, 37, and 38 of the Criminal Act."

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows, without examining the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged by the court and the summary of the evidence is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Articles 257 (1), 284, and 283 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1) and 38(1)3, and 50 of the Criminal Act is a crime of intimidation that the defendant, when considering the face of a female victim, brought about a knife, brought about a knife, and died. In light of the risk of the crime, the case is not less complicated, and the defendant is the same as from the year of 1987.