The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant of mistake of facts does not inflict an injury on the victim by unloading a victim's bridge through a stick.

During the dispute between the defendant and the victim, the knee is knee-knee-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-k

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of social service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor who made an ex officio reversal of the facts charged in the instant case was at the trial, and applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to the indictment as stated in the facts charged subsequent to the trial. Since the subject of the trial was changed by this court, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the modified facts charged despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, and this is examined below.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, including the statement made by the victim in the lower court and the part of the Defendant’s statement, the fact that the Defendant brought a stick and put the victim with a stick towards the victim, and the Defendant and the victim put a fighting with a stick, and that the Defendant and the victim put the victim a sick and fighting, caused the victim to go beyond the victim, and caused the victim to go beyond the victim’s left-hand ske.

According to the records, there is no credibility in the victim's statement to the effect that the victim's stick was laid down due to the shock from the defendant among the victim's statements, but the stick in this case is owned by the defendant, and TV is seen as being owned by the defendant.