The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the point of special assault is.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and two months) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the consistent statement of prosecutor (1) misunderstanding C as to the facts, the Defendant at the time of the instant case, “I have been engaged in the correspondence.”

“As the horses were knife a knife at the beginning, “A” was knife and knife at the knife, or (the circumstance that the Defendant committed an act of knife to C after the knife was knife is merely the situation after the commission of the crime, and thus cannot be inferred at the time of the initial assault). In light of the circumstances that J and C were seated very close to the knife, at least on the knife, while recognizing the fact that knife J could fit the knife, it can be recognized that the Defendant committed an intentional act of knife to J.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, each of the offenses against the Defendant was examined by the prosecutor, and each of the offenses against the Defendant is "special injury" in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.), and "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.)" was "special assault". However, Article 258-2 of the Criminal Act was newly established after the crime of this case. However, since Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act provides that "where punishment is more severe than the former Act, due to the revision of the Act after the crime, it constitutes "where punishment is more severe than the latter Act", the aforementioned provision must be punished pursuant to the above provision (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do17907 Decided January 28, 2016), and the remaining application for permission was modified by the court."