The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

A seized knife (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

(e).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in this case, each of the assaults in this case is a crime of anti-presidential act, and the victims expressed explicitly their intention not to punish the Defendant on April 17, 2019, prior to the date of a decision of the court below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. As to the attempted special injury among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court, which punished the Defendant for the crime of injury other than intimidation, even though there was no intention to inflict the injury, such as knife the knife the knife and knife the knife, etc., even though there was no intention to inflict the injury.

C. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (10 months of imprisonment, confiscation) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of assaulting in the misapprehension of the legal principle is a crime falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. According to the records of this case, C, D, and E, the victims of assault, submitted a written agreement and a written withdrawal of complaint stating that the defendant’s punishment shall not be imposed on April 17, 2019, prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principle that found the defendant guilty even though it was dismissed by judgment under Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. The first instance court’s argument of misunderstanding of facts as to attempted special injury is inconsistent with the evidence of the first instance court when it intends to re-examine the first instance court’s decision and ex post facto determine it, although there is no new objective reason that could affect the formation of perjury during the hearing process.