The judgment below

The acquittal portion shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge is acquitted. The judgment of the court below is erroneous.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant case, the victim had an intentional injury on the part of the Defendant, in light of the fact that: (a) at the time of the instant case, the victim, by hand, was living close close to the Defendant’s cargo to the extent that the window was set up by hand; and (b) the Defendant: (c) plucked and plucked

It should be seen, and dolusent intention is recognized even if there is no conclusive intention about the injury of the interpreter.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, as it found the defendant not guilty on the charge of inflicting bodily injury on carrying dangerous articles among the facts charged in this case (the name of the crime in this part of the facts charged in this case was special piracy, and the applicable legal provisions were modified to Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act).

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one million won in penalty) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Judgment on the acquittal portion of the judgment below

A. In the trial of the court of appeal, the prosecutor ex officio reversed the defendant's "Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)" among the defendant's name of the crime is "a special injury," deleted "Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act," and Article 2 (1) 1 of the "Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.," and "a request for amendment to an amendment to an indictment with additional contents" under Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act. Since this court permitted this and changed the subject of the trial, the part of the judgment of the court below against the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) cannot be maintained.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake as to the injury to carry dangerous articles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a rural village located in Sung-dong, Sung-dong on June 10, 2014.