The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged by misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant was not at the time of the victim’s head by misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant was merely the head of the victim’s disease while cutting the victim’s main disease.

B. Improper sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended sentence in one year and six months of imprisonment, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by authority, the Prosecutor filed an application to change the name of the crime from among the facts charged of the instant case to “special injury” as “special injury”, and Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the applicable law to “Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act” as “Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act.” Since the instant court permitted this, the lower court’s judgment against the Defendant was no longer maintained.

Nevertheless, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., (i) the victim, immediately after the instant case, entered the written statement prepared by the police, “The victim was the subject of the accusation, but was at the time of the Defendant’s head because the sick was as a penalty for negligence.”

In the investigation, “The Defendant stated to the effect that “the Defendant was deprived of the illness cited by the victim, thereby getting off the victim’s head,” and the written statement of the written statement sent to the prosecution, “The upper part of the sentry’s disease was fluorized, but it was time for the Defendant to fluorize the upper part of the sentry’s disease, because it was a fluort, and fluor, when the Defendant was fluored.

The Defendant stated “”, and ② the Defendant.