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 one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since a mistake of fact-finding defendant had the intention to injure the victim D and did not have a beer balance with the victim D, the defendant is not liable for the injury caused by negligence, apart from the fact that the defendant is liable for the injury caused by negligence, the crime of injury is not established.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. When the prosecutor made an ex officio judgment (change of indictment) and the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the phrase “the above bed against the wall” among the facts charged in the instant case, and this court permitted the amendment to the indictment.

As such, since the subject of the judgment was changed in the trial, the judgment of the court below is no longer able to be maintained.

However, even if the judgment of the court below has such reasons for reversal of authority as above, the defense counsel's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of the court.

3. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant is acknowledged as follows: (1) the defendant drank alcohol with the workplace club fee, and the workplace club fee and the workplace club fee that she was seated in harmony with the charge (Evidence No. 12, 26 pages of the evidence record), and (2) the beer balance that the defendant was seated with the table that the defendant and the workplace club fee were seated and broken, and the victim's hand, etc. who was seated in the immediately next table is protruding, and the victim suffered injury as stated in the facts charged [the report (report on the victim's hearing of statements)] is acknowledged.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant had dolusorous intentional injury and had a beer residues towards the workplace rent, and even if the result of the injury was caused to a victim, not the workplace rent originally intended, the defendant had the beer residues.