A. The Defendant of mistake of facts did not only buckbucks part of the victim’s bucks, but only 1 time more than once.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant merely bucks where the victim’s bucks were inserted in the construction work inserted and made once in tree, and the victim did not feel any danger to the victim’s life or body. As such, the foregoing construction work inserted does not constitute “hazardous things” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

C. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 40 hours of order to attend school) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, namely, ① the victim made a statement that he/she had met once from the Defendant at the time of making a statement at the investigation agency, but the victim made a first statement at the investigation agency before that time, not only stated about 10 times the Defendant made a statement, but also stated the same purport in the written complaint, and the victim appears to have reversed the statement as above after the agreement with the Defendant, it is difficult to believe it as it is. ② According to the video of the victim’s left side buckbuckbucks and the video of the victim’s photograph, the Defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he/she inflicted bodily injury on the victim by assaulting the victim at least two times as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment. Thus, the above argument by the Defendant is without merit.

B. In a case where determining the misapprehension of legal principles constitutes “hazardous goods” as prescribed by Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the other party or the third party is life when using the goods in light of social norms.