A. In relation to the facts charged of special assault as stated in the judgment of the court below, inasmuch as the defendant directly damaged the head of the victim C by using solid smartphones, and the surrounding children are likely to cause harm to the victim, and thus, the defendant's cell phone used for the crime of this case constitutes a dangerous article, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant's cell phone used for the crime of this case constitutes a dangerous article.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the mobile phone of this case did not constitute a dangerous object as to this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of suspended execution in October, and two years of probation) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion of the legal doctrine ought to be based on whether the other party or a third party could feel a danger to his/her life or body when using a product in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do3520, Mar. 26, 2009; 2010Do930, Apr. 29, 2010). As to this part of the facts charged, according to the victim’s statement in C, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of using a mobile phone was one time at the time of his/her head on the part of the Defendant’s cell phone, and that the child and his/her father and wife were at the time of the time when her mother and his/her mother were her mother. In full view of the shape and material of the ordinary mobile phone, the frequency of violence, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, and the victim’s statement in an investigative agency, etc., it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s act directly caused the danger of crime.