The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

In the trial of the party, the prosecutor applied the applicable law to "special injury" as to the facts charged of this case from "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)", and "Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act" to "Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act". The prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with regard to the facts charged of this case to "Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act," and the court permitted the amendment and so, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any longer.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing, on the ground that the above ground for reversal ex officio is a ground for reversal, and the judgment below is reversed, and the judgment below is

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 257(1) (a) of the Criminal Act, Articles 261 and 260(1) (a) of the Criminal Act, Article 260(1) (a) of the Criminal Act, and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (a) of the Criminal Act (the point of assault, the point of imprisonment, and the choice of punishment) concerning the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes with the heavier special injury);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances)

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of the observation of protection and the sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act is not that the crime of this case, carrying dangerous articles, causing injury to many victims or causing violence, but that the damage has not been recovered.

However, the degree of damage caused by the crime of this case does not seem to have been much serious, and the defendant recognized all the crimes of this case and divided the errors in depth.