A. In relation to the crime of special assault in this case by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, despite the fact that the defendant could not be deemed as a dangerous object used at the time of the crime, and there was no assault by Masan.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Whether a misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine constitutes “a dangerous object” as prescribed by Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act should be determined based on whether the other party or a third party could cause harm to his/her life or body when using the object in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3520, Mar. 26, 2009). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (i) the fact that the length of the childbirth used by the Defendant for the crime is considerably high (Evidence No. 52, etc. of the evidence record); and (ii) the Defendant might have sufficiently caused harm to his/her body due to the use of the aforementioned friendly.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the above Masan constitutes a dangerous thing, and it is also recognized that the defendant used violence against Masan. Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. It is recognized that most of the defendant's criminal offenses are recognized as unfair sentencing, and that the defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant by agreement with the victim C.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime of intrusion on residence, attempted intrusion on residence, destruction of property, bodily injury, and special assault on three occasions in a short period of time, and the victim C’s residence at night or at new wall time.