In light of the fact-finding and misapprehension of the legal principles, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal principles, rather than leaving or leaving the victim by fire extinguishers, and the victim's flag and head was damaged by the fire extinguisher. In addition, the fire extinguisher does not constitute "hazardous goods" as provided by Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below which decided the defendant as the crime of injury by carrying a deadly weapon is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles.

The sentencing of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant inflicted bodily injury on the victim by taking care of the victim's head by gathering a fire extinguishing machine.

Whether a certain thing constitutes “hazardous thing” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act shall be determined based on whether the other party or a third party could feel a danger to life or body when using the thing in light of social norms in a specific case.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10256, Nov. 11, 2010). The Defendant was at the time of the victim’s head by taking fire extinguishing devices at the end of a minor dispute with the victim. The Defendant was at the time of the victim’s head. The goods consisting of a simple metal material and considerable weighted by the fire extinguishing machine, and the victim, as well as any third party, was at risk of death or bodily harm.

Therefore, the defendant's above mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

The statutory penalty for the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.) is "limited to imprisonment for a limited term of at least three years". The judgment of the court below has reduced the amount by taking account of the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim, etc., and then is the lowest sentence of