The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant: (a) was aware of the fact that he sought the victim due to drinking and salivation; (b) but (c) was a dangerous object.

There is no fluoration of the victim by “fluoring”.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the special injury portion. The judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the fact about this part, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the purport that the part of the facts charged, “ promptly frush, which is a dangerous object,” should be changed to “the fluoring fluor, which is a dangerous object,” and since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined first.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the judgment of the court below is as follows.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charges of special injury, following the following facts: (a) based on the Defendant’s partial statement in the lower court; (b) partial statement of the witness D (victim) in the lower court; (c) the legal statement of the witness E in the lower court; (d) the police statement of the witness E in the lower court; and (e) the written diagnosis of injury; and (e) the investigation report (Attachment to the victim’s parts of the damaged parts of the photo) as soon as the Defendant was an dangerous object, and

(c)

The defendant's judgment of this Court is " soon"

We look at whether the victim's name has been classified as "the modification of a bill of indictment in an appellate trial" (the expression "materials of happiness" in the appellate court).

In accordance with this part of the facts charged, the complainant and the police of the victim are admissible as evidence.