The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. In light of the following: (a) the summary of the grounds for appeal of this case is inadequate to commit the instant crime; (b) the Defendant has been punished several times of violence-related crimes; (c) the risk of recidivism is high; (d) the Defendant does not reflect the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant requires strict punishment for violent crimes, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of suspended execution for one year of imprisonment) is too uneasible.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, the prosecutor examined the facts charged in the case of 2015 Godan287 as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the prosecutor changed the name of the crime from "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective violence)" to "special violence", "Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act" to "Article 261 and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act", and changed the applicable provisions to "Article 261 and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act" as "Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act" in the judgment of the court below as to "Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective injury, etc. to deadly weapons, etc.)" from "Violation of Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 366 of the applicable provisions of the Criminal Act to the application for permission.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below based on the original facts charged no longer can be maintained.

(1) The prosecutor appealed that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the applicable provisions of the facts charged in this case as unconstitutional. However, the court below's decision on the above argument no longer practical benefit is made as a result of the amendment of indictment as above. 3. Thus, the court below's decision on the ground of the above ex officio reversal is without examining the prosecutor's argument on the unfair sentencing.