The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below of fact-finding, since the defendant could fully recognize the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury upon the victim by taking advantage of the victim as stated in the facts charged, the court below acquitted the defendant about the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (injury by collective weapons, etc.).

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.)" among the names of the crimes against the defendant as "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.)", "Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" among the applicable provisions of the Act, "Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act" of the facts charged as "Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act," and "the part of "the part of the victim's loss" (hereinafter referred to as "the victim's loss was committed to the victim, and the part of the judgment below's acquittal was changed as it was no longer maintained."

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts that "whether the defendant has committed a mistake against the victim" is still subject to the judgment of this court, and it will be examined as to this.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and examined evidence of the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the Defendant: (a) the Defendant: (b) had the police force force to ask the Defendant from 5 days before the date of the case into the blank; and (c) caused the sudden thought or harmony to the remainder.