The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that this judgment.

As to the Defendant’s mistake of the facts and the facts charged of misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendant only has a fact that flabling the victim’s flab, and the Defendant did not have a flab with her hand, and there was a false or exaggerated part of the injury.

In addition, the defendant's act of breathing can not be justified because it constitutes a justifiable act in light of its details and purpose.

With respect to intimidation of carrying lethal weapons, it is unfair to maintain the legal provisions applied by the court below as unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. Above all, there is no fact that the defendant has threatened the victim in knife.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all the facts charged guilty is erroneous and erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

The punishment of the court below (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's (unfair sentencing) sentence of the lower court is too unfortunate and unfair.

The prosecutor of the judgment ex officio (amended by the indictment) applied the name of the crime with respect to intimidation against the carrying of a deadly weapon among the facts charged at the time of the trial. Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act apply to “Article 284 and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act” to “Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act” to “Article 284 and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act” as the name of the crime in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) is “special intimidation.” Since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court, the judgment below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, even if such a ground for ex officio reversal exists, the defendant's misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's factual mistake and misunderstanding of the legal principles were the same in the court below, and the court below rejected the above assertion on detailed grounds.

The judgment of the court below is correct.