A. Legal principles 1) The Defendant’s camping net used at the time of committing the instant crime (hereinafter “instant camping net”).

(2) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the defendant does not fall under “hazardous goods” as stipulated in Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and applying the above Act by deeming it as dangerous goods. 2) The victim, along with D, inflicted injury upon his employeeJ at the above main office due to the difference between the entertainment tavern created by him and his own, and computer monitors, etc., which led to the crime of this case in order to prevent the occurrence of additional damage and the escape of the victim at the site. As the defendant damaged property, the defendant committed the crime of this case in order to prevent the occurrence of additional damage after considering the main office and the status of the above J and the situation of the above J and to prevent the victim from escape at the site, even though this falls under excessive defense, by misapprehending the legal principles that did not reflect

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

가. 이 사건 야구방망이가 폭력행위등처벌에관한법률 제3조 제1항의 ‘위험한 물건’에 해당하는지 여부에 대하여 1) 어떤 물건이 폭력행위 등 처벌에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항에서 정한 ‘위험한 물건’에 해당하는지 여부는 구체적인 사안에서 사회통념에 비추어 그 물건을 사용하면 상대방이나 제3자가 생명 또는 신체에 위험을 느낄 수 있는지 여부에 따라 판단하여야 한다(대법원 2010. 11. 11. 선고 2010도10256 판결 등 참조). 2) 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 피해자가 피고인이 휘두르는 야구방망이에 팔과 머리 등을 맞아 머리를 18바늘 꿰메는 등 2주간의 치료를 요하는 두피열상,...