A. The court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the “automobile” used by the Defendant in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles to inflict bodily injury on the victim of this case constitutes “hazardous goods” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, but the lower court did not constitute “hazardous goods” operated by the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles concerning the determination of “hazardous goods” and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (two million won of a fine) imposed on the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In a specific case where the issue of determining a misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles constitutes “hazardous goods” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the determination shall be based on whether the other party or a third party could feel a danger to human life or body when using the goods in light of social norms. Such determination criteria also apply where a person’s life or body was inflicted by using a motor vehicle.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do10256, Nov. 11, 2010; 2012Do12539, Feb. 14, 2013). In the instant case, the Defendant got out of the said vehicle and brought an injury again and incurred the said injury at the time of leaving the vehicle again, and the Defendant was aware of the departure of the vehicle, so it would have been able to avoid the result of the injury. Accordingly, the victim was only suffering from the injury of salt and tensions in the right-hand part of the right-hand part, which requires treatment for about two weeks, and in light of the part and degree of the injury, the victim did not have much contacted with the victim as compared to the victim.