The judgment of the court below is reversed. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On March 12, 2015, which was submitted by a defense counsel to the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles within the lawful time limit for appeal, there was no assertion that the illegality of the appeal is dismissed since the defendant's act of assault does not constitute an act contrary to social norms, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal, since the defendant's act of assault does not constitute an act contrary to social norms.

Even if ex officio, the victim E made a bad speech or behavior against the defendant who is his father.

Even if the defendant's act of gathering the victim E's head does not go against the social norms, the illegality cannot be deemed to be avoided due to acts that do not go against the social norms, and since the victim E resistbbbbbs in the course of the crime of assault brought by the defendant himself, it cannot be viewed that the illegality of the defendant's act does not go against the social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2781 delivered on January 12, 1995). (See Supreme Court Decision 94Do2781 delivered on January 12, 1995.) bodily injury and assault (see Supreme Court Decision 1 and 2-A of the facts charged) are committed by the defendant at the time of the victim E's head, and there is no fact that the victim E head or face of the victim E by his hand.

2) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) (Article 2-2 of the facts charged) (Article 2-2) does not intentionally threaten the victim E by intentionally taking advantage of a hives, and there was no fact that the Defendant told the victim E to “the victim E” as “the victim was killed due to a hives as alleged in the indictment.”

Furthermore, when the defendant was a victim E is in a situation outside the house when he was a victim E, so the victim E is not in a situation where the victim E can hear one horse, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant threatened the victim E.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in August) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination: