The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, did not have any assaulted the Victim G, and there is no fact that he had any knife, knife and smelled at the time.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio as to the capacity to assume responsibility, the defendant and his defense counsel did not explicitly expressly expressly present a mental and physical disorder in this case. However, in full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the records of this case: (i) the defendant dices illness immediately before the crime committed on September 23, 2014; and (ii) during the process of agreement on the crime committed on September 21, 2014 at home of the victim E, the victim E, and E in the process of agreement, the agreement amount of 6 million won, which is somewhat unreasonable from the defendant's standpoint, would have been found to have discovered the status where the victim and E, who were requested to request the above victims to suffer an unfair difference in appraisal between the victims, and all other circumstances revealed in the oral proceedings including the defendant's words, attitudes, etc., at the time of the crime, the court below determined that the defendant did not have a weak ability or ability to decide on the things at the time of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do479.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s injury, which is a dangerous weapon, as stated in paragraph (4) of the lower judgment, is attributable to the Defendant’s loss.