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 two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor and six years of suspended execution, confiscation, probation, and community service order) of the lower court is too unreasonable;

2. Prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the lower court ex officio examined the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and the lower court erred by omitting the applicable provisions on confiscation in the application of statutes, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of facts and evidence recognized by the court is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act ( considered in favor of the following circumstances):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act is a situation unfavorable to the defendant, where the victim suffered bodily injury by means of violating the part on the left side of the victim with a fishing knife, which is a dangerous object of the defendant, and the risk and the nature of the crime was serious, and the fact that the victim did not have been supported by an agreement with the victim up to the trial.

On the other hand, however, the defendant was the first offender who has no criminal power at all, the attitude that the defendant seems to reflect his mistake, and deposited 3.5 million won of medical expenses for the victim in the trial, and the defendant was the defendant.