2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one and half years;

A. The lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged, misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby inflicting bodily injury on the victim, on the part of the Defendant, which is a dangerous object.

However, it does not constitute a dangerous object, and the injured party's wife is naturally able to recover, so it does not constitute a crime of causing bodily injury that interferes with the execution of special duties, and the accused was not able to anticipate the occurrence of injury.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Fact-finding or legal doctrine 1) Whether it constitutes “hazardous things” under Article 144 of the Criminal Act as to a crime of interference with the performance of special official duties in a specific case should be determined by whether, in light of social norms, the use of the goods could cause harm to the life or body of the other party or a third party. If, although a motor vehicle was not originally created for the purpose of killing or destroying, it constitutes “hazardous things” (see Supreme Court Decisions 84Do201, 84Da319, Oct. 23, 1984; 2002Do5783, Jan. 24, 2003). The lower court, based on evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, can be recognized as constituting “hazardous things” if it was used for causing harm to the life or body of a person or destroying another person’s property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do201, Oct. 23, 1984; 2002Do5783, Jan. 24, 201).