A. In fact, the Defendant misunderstanding the Defendant first saw her head from the damaged person, she was flicking the victim with the brick, and she was aware of the victim's her flick, but the victim was faced with it, and the her flick is not the same as her flick.

B. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the phrase “to carry a dangerous object” as referred to in Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act means the possession or wide use of a dangerous object. In the event that a person inflicts an injury on another person while carrying a dangerous object, the other party did not recognize the existence of such dangerous object, or did not directly cause any harm to his/her life or body by using such dangerous object.

Even if this crime is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do597, May 30, 1997; 2002Do5783, Jan. 24, 2003). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant carried a brick, which is a dangerous object, and inflicted an injury on the victim for about two weeks in need of treatment, and as alleged by the defendant, it does not affect the establishment of a special injury even if the victim was not injured by the victim due to his own gate.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Under the Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, where there exists an area unique to the first instance judgment as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). As new materials for sentencing have not been submitted at the trial of the first instance, the change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower judgment is to be changed.