The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

A candidate for medical treatment and custody shall be punished by medical treatment and custody.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the crime of assault against the victim G by mistake of facts, the Defendant committed an assault against the victim G by misunderstanding of facts, but, even though there was no support on twice the victim’s clothes, it was erroneous that the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, which was recognized by the lower court.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, according to the written mental appraisal of the Defendant of the Medical Treatment and Custody complaint prepared by the request of the court prior to transfer, the Defendant was diagnosed as having mental, behavioral and dependent symptoms due to alcohol use. At the time of each of the instant crimes, each of the instant crimes can be acknowledged as having a lack of ability to discern things or make decisions due to alcohol use.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment that deemed the Defendant to have committed each of the instant crimes under a normal mind is erroneous, and is unlawful.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, even though there is a ground for ex officio reversal in the judgment of the court below.

B. Comprehensively taking account of each statement made by the victim G and witness K investigation agency on October 13, 2012, the Defendant’s obsesses on the grounds that the victim G in front of the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F building would make anti-contestates at around 13:45 on October 13, 2012, and can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant satisfed twice the victim’s breath and satched and satched twice.

Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal in this part is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen earlier.