The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below determined that the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case is recognized, and it is just to reject the Defendant’s assertion of self-defense. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the law on punishment of Violences, etc., or by misapprehending the legal principles on "hazardous goods" under the Punishment of Violences, etc.

According to the records, although the defendant alleged in the statement of grounds for appeal that he was in a state of mental or physical disability at the time of each of the instant crimes, the court below determined that the defendant's claim of mental or physical disability was limited to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.) and the crime of assault on August 19, 2012, and did not make any judgment as to the damage of property, injury, or insult on July 22, 2012.

However, even after examining the record, it is recognized that the defendant was not in a state of mental disability as being drunk at the time of the crime of causing property damage, bodily injury, and insult as of July 22, 2012. Thus, the omission of the judgment by the court below as above does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.