The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding: The Defendant only tried to deprive the victim of beer’s disease from the victim of beer’s disease. During that process, the victim suffered the face of beer’s disease due to any reason, and the Defendant did not price the victim as beer’s disease.

Even if the damaged person suffered the injury by the defendant's act,

Even if the defendant had no intention to inflict any injury, the defendant did not.

B. misunderstanding of legal principles: The victim also inflicted an injury on the defendant by using dangerous articles, and the prosecutor prosecuted the defendant without instituting a prosecution against the victim.

Therefore, the public prosecution of this case is not effective since the prosecutor clearly deviates from the discretion of the prosecution.

(c)

Sentencing Sentencing : Even if the facts charged in the instant case are guilty, the sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

In the trial of the party, the prosecutor applied for permission to amend the Criminal Code to "Article 258-2 (1), Article 257 (1), and Article 35 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act" as "Special Bodily Injury", and Article 3 (1), Article 2 (1) 3, Article 257 (1), and Article 35 of the Criminal Code" was amended to "Article 258-2 (1), Article 257 (1), and Article 35 of the Criminal Code," and the subject of the trial was changed by this court.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

3. Despite the grounds for ex officio reversal of the aforementioned Paragraph 2, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

The portion rejected by the Supreme Court on the ground that the assertion of the grounds for the appeal is groundless has become final and conclusive simultaneously with the declaration of the judgment, and the defendant or the prosecutor can no longer dispute this part.