All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months and by a fine not exceeding 500,000 won.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the mistake of facts, the Defendant did not have had the glass cups toward the victim, but rather had it adjacent to the victim. Since the said glass cups were mutually favorable to the victim, there was no intention of injury.

B. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to drinking at the time of the instant bodily injury.

C. The sentence of the lower court’s sentencing (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year, and the second instance court: a fine of 700,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal above ex officio, the first and second court sentenced the defendant to the above punishment, after having undergone a separate trial against the defendant respectively, and sentenced the defendant to the above punishment. The defendant filed each appeal against the first and second original judgment, and the above appellate court decided to hold concurrent hearings. Each of the first and second court's offenses against the defendant shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, all of the judgment of the court below cannot escape from reversal.

In addition, at the trial of the second instance, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the bill of amendment to the contents of Articles 4 and 5 of the facts charged by the second instance court that "the prosecutor damaged the property, such as putting an empty beer, beer, beer, bed, etc., and the glass bed at a shock (500,000 won at the market price) owned by the victim" to "hicker, bed, bed, bed, and damaged the property by breaking the bed, bed, bed, bed, and the property was damaged." Since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court's permission, the second judgment cannot be maintained any more in this respect.

However, although the judgment of the court below has the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's mistake of facts and assertion of mental and physical disorder in the first judgment still exists in this court.