The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the part concerning the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, injury by a deadly weapon, etc.), which was found not guilty in the court below's determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, although according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although it can be recognized that the steel maker, which is a dangerous object, was on the left side of the victim E, and the part under the part of the table of the trust, was damaged by several times on the back head of the victim E, which was the bottom of the table on the table, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, or erred by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2)

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principle

A. On October 25, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 01:45 on October 25, 2012, on the ground that the victim E working at a “D” restaurant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, told the Defendant to dismiss the Defendant; (b) opened the part of the victim’s face at a drinking time; (c) opened several parts of the victim’s back head; (d) opened the victim’s back part on the part of the victim’s left side; and (e) opened the victim’s back part of the victim’s back head, which is a dangerous object.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and carried them about about four weeks of medical treatment to the left-hand side of the victim, which requires medical treatment.

B. The judgment of the court below is that ① the statement made by the victim to the purport that the defendant was aware of the name of the defendant is merely a conjection, ② the defendant's head was stamped when considering the weight of the food deposit, if the defendant was found to have the head of the victim's head, then the victim's injury suffered from the back head.