The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that, at the time when the defendant was protruding, any result among the two results may be likely to occur, regardless of whether the victim is faced with or not;

It should be seen that the so-called "alternative intention" that thought and act, or that the person had both the intent of special assault and damage to special property.

On the contrary, the judgment of the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to confession and reinforcement evidence, and the failure of deliberation, as it did not exercise the right of explanation on the part of the prosecutor to clearly express the defendant's intent of internal deliberation even though the defendant was fully aware of the crime.

2. Determination

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

On March 13, 2018 at the trial, a prosecutor applied for changes in indictment and added property to the name of the crime, added Article 40 of the Criminal Act, and added Article 40 of the Criminal Act of the applicable law, among the charges, the part of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the charges, as stated below (re-written judgment) of Articles 1 and 2 of the charges, which changed the part of the charges to be damaged by drinking a new flag as a separate crime of property damage, and changed the indictment to the effect that the punishment for the crimes against which a victim flaging a dangerous object was committed as an ordinary concurrent relation between the crime of special assault and the crime of special property damage is punished. This court permitted this.

The judgment of the court below was changed from the date of the trial to the date of the trial, so the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. Determination as to the reasons for appeal 1) The subjective element of the constituent elements of the relevant legal doctrine, which is dolusent intent, refers to the case where the possibility of occurrence of a crime is expressed to be uncertain, and where it is acceptable, and where there was dolusent intention.

(2) the Corporation.