The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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 by the defendant;

A. Fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant, at the time, stops the vehicle to make a claim against the victim G at the time, and did not have the intention of injury and damage.

2) In the instant case, the Defendant’s vehicle does not constitute a dangerous article.

3) The victims’ injury cannot be deemed as an injury under the Criminal Act due to a minor injury that does not interfere with their daily lives, and it cannot be deemed that it was caused by an existing disease and that it was caused by the Defendant’s act.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. A. In the trial of the court, the prosecutor of the judgment ex officio: (i) applied the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) to “damage to a special property”; and (ii) applied the Act to Article 369(1) and Article 366 of the Criminal Act to “Article 36 of the Criminal Act”; and (iii) applied the Act to the Defendant to change the term “violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)” from among the names of the crimes against the Defendant into “special injury”; and (iv) applied the Act to the corresponding portion to “Article 258-2(1) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act” to “Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act” to “Article 258-2(1) and Article 257(1) of the same Act to the effect that

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and we will examine below.

B. The Defendant alleged the same assertion as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail, with the title “determination on the Defendant and his/her defense counsel’s assertion”.

The lower court’s aforementioned fact-finding and judgment.