The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant alleged the misunderstanding of the facts did not carry a friend disease, which is a dangerous object to be used in committing the crime, and did not have any intention to injure (the Defendant reported that the Defendant shouldered a friend disease in front of the victim’s friend, and the Defendant was only prevented the Defendant from committing a friend disease with no friend disease, but the friend disease that was friended by the Defendant’s friend, and the Defendant’s friended with the Defendant’s friend with the Defendant’s friend in the item of the victim’s friend, and the Defendant

B. The lower court’s punishment (two years of suspended sentence of one year and six months, and one year of observation of protection) is too unreasonable even if it is found guilty of sentencing.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the name of the defendant as "special injury" in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.). Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act "Article 258-2 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" in "Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act". Since this court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained in this respect.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, the victim saw the Defendant’s shouldered disease as his flag, and flaged on the end of the shouldered disease during the flag, thereby consistently stating that “The Defendant flaged his flag in his flag with his flag,