A. In relation to the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act due to misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles and assault by carrying dangerous articles (hereinafter “violation of the Punishment of Violences Act”), the defendant was merely scamed on the floor and did not have any fact leading to the victim’s face, and the above camcam can not be deemed to constitute “hazardous articles” as provided by Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act. However, the judgment of the court below that found all of these facts and found the defendant guilty of the defendant guilty by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. On the other hand, in relation to the point of injury, the victim was scambling out in the process of scambling it, and the victim did not have inflicted injury on the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the defendant did not do so as to be a passive defensive act, and even if this is a legitimate act, the judgment below convict

B. Even if a person is guilty of an unreasonable sentencing sentence, the lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the breadth Act (A) is consistent from each police station to the court of the court below as to whether the defendant was scam for the victim, and there is no reason objectively contrary to the empirical rule, and according to the statements of each court below by the victim, witness G, and H, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant was scam for the victim's face, such as the facts stated in the judgment of the court below at the time of the judgment of the court below, and there is sufficient reason to acknowledge the fact that the defendant was scam for the victim's face.

B) Whether the instant instant instant instant instant instant instant instant instant instant instant instant instant instant instant instant cup constitutes “hazardous goods” (see Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, even if the “hazardous goods” is not a deadly weapon.