A. When the defendant committed a crime of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, each item (hereinafter “each item of this case”) standing the victim at the time of committing the crime of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the judgment below does not constitute “hazardous goods” as provided by the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and the upper part of the victim’s wife does not constitute “injury” as it does not cause any particular hindrance to daily life and is minor enough to

B. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing a crime under paragraph (1) of the judgment below.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act provides that “a dangerous thing” includes any thing that can be widely used to harm human life and body, even if it is not a deadly weapon. Thus, not only a thing made for the original purpose of killing but also a knife, silver, glass bottle, various tools, automobiles, etc. made for other purposes, but also a chemical medicine or a dead animal, etc. used for causing harm to human life and body (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2812, Sept. 6, 2002). Whether a certain thing constitutes “hazardous thing” should be determined by taking into account the following circumstances in light of social norms, whether the other party or third party’s body could be harmed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do4374, Apr. 27, 2017).