The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the fact that the Defendant did not have dancing the deadly weapons against the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (a three-year imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. In the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor ex officio changed the defendant's name of the crime into "thief", "Article 331 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act" from among the applicable provisions of the Act into "Article 329 of the Criminal Act", "1. Special thief" from among the facts charged paragraph (1) to "thief", and "3. Special thief" from among the facts charged, to "3. thief", and in paragraph (3) of the facts charged, "a knife (17cc in total length and 7cm in length) with lethal weapons" and "a knife with lethal weapons carrying them" and paragraph (3) of the facts charged, and applied for changes in indictment with "a condition in which knife knife knife knife knife k's name is put" and "a deadly weapons" deleted from this part of the facts charged.

However, since the lower court rendered a single sentence by treating this part of the facts charged and the remaining convicted charges as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the lower judgment should be reversed in its entirety.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts as to special robbery among the facts charged in this case is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined below.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment, and as to this, the lower court determined that the Defendant was 15cm in length at the time of the instant case between the police and the lower court.