The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, did not administer philophones or assault the victim J, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

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

In the first instance trial, the prosecutor filed an application for changes in the indictment with the content that "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively weapons, etc.)" is "special assault" and "Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act" as "Articles 261 and 260 (1) of the Criminal Act" are "Articles 261 and 260 (1) of the Criminal Act" among the names of the crimes related to the facts charged in the instant case, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained further in this regard

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

B. In the lower court’s determination of mistake of facts, the Defendant made the same assertion as the reasons for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail, following the summary column of the evidence by case, by giving a detailed statement of the Defendant’s assertion and its judgment. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he administered phiphones around May 24, 2015 and assaulted the victim J on February 24, 2015, and thus, the lower court’s determination that rejected the Defendant’s assertion was justifiable and did not err by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant.