The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for a period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the empirical rule, it seems that the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of fact (defendants) flicking out of the 4th left corner, such as the statement in the facts charged, caused the victim E to the victim’s flick flick flick in the price of the head of the victim Flick 500cc. Rather, the above injury of the victim E is nothing more than that occurred in the process of fighting the Defendant’s body with the Defendant prior to fighting. Therefore, the Defendant’s charge of this case against the victim E should be pronounced not guilty due to lack of proof of crime. However, the Defendant’s flick flick flick flick was caused

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below that recognized the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) was erroneous as affecting the judgment.

B. The court below's improper assertion of sentencing (the defendant and the prosecutor) is too heavy or unbrupted in one year and six months of imprisonment, which the court below committed against the defendant.

2. In the trial of the court, the prosecutor of the judgment ex officio applied the provision of this case to "special injury" as "a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)", and the applicable provision to "Articles 3 (1), 2 (1) 3, and 257 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act" to "Article 258-2 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" to "Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act". Since this court permitted this and changed its subject to the judgment, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal in the judgment below, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined below.

3. The following circumstances, i.e., the victim was treated, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court, based on the determination on the assertion of mistake of facts.