The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the above facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had failed to commit murder at least at the time of committing the crime as stated in this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on murder, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one month of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, etc.) is too uneasy and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor examined the case in question, and the prosecutor maintained the charge of attempted murder against the defendant as the primary charge and applied for changes in the indictment with the contents of adding the charges of attempted murder and the charges of damage to property as stated in the facts charged in the judgment below. The subject of the judgment was changed by this court upon permission.

In this regard, as seen below, this Court convicted all of the attempted injury added in preliminary and damaged property. As such, the part of the judgment of the court below which acquitted was no longer maintained, and the crime of attempted injury and damaged property and the crime of destroying property which was found guilty by the court below is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below which found the guilty cannot be maintained.

However, despite such reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's mistake of the primary facts charged which was judged not guilty in the original judgment is possible.