The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year of imprisonment with prison labor and three years of suspended execution) is too unhued.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.

In the so-called crime of non-violation of Intention, the absence of the expression of intention to not punish the victim is a passive litigation condition and subject to ex officio investigation. Thus, even if the party did not assert it, the court should investigate and determine it ex officio.

(2) As to the facts charged in the instant case, the victim E submitted to the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office on September 7, 201, prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below, and according to the confirmation document attached with a copy of the victim E identification card, it is recognized that the victim E submitted to the investigation agency the written agreement under the name of the victim E and expressed its intention not to punish the defendant in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the victim E submitted the written agreement under the victim E to the effect that “E was accused of the defendant as the crime of assault.” The record reveals that the victim E submitted it to the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office on September 7, 2014, prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below, and according to the confirmation document attached with a copy of the victim E identification card, it is recognized that the victim E submitted the written agreement under the victim E to the investigation agency and expressed its intention not to punish the defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below found the victim E guilty of assault in the facts charged of this case without conducting any deliberation as to whether or not the victim E clearly expresses his intention not to punish, and therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more in this regard.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is based on Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, on the ground of the above ex officio reversal.