A. In light of the legal principles, each item used by the defendant to rescue the victim does not constitute "hazardous goods" as provided by the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a specific case where the determination of the misapprehension of legal principles constitutes “hazardous goods” as prescribed by Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the determination should be based on whether the other party or the third party could feel a risk to life or body when using the goods in question in light of social norms.

(2) As to the Defendant’s assertion, each item used by the Defendant for the instant crime constitutes a dangerous object as prescribed by Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, in light of the shape of the Defendant’s use in the instant crime, the victim’s head and shoulder, etc., as well as the method of committing the crime, etc., as the lower judgment properly explained in the “judgment on the Defendant’s assertion” in this case, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.

B. Although the crime of this case on the assertion of unfair sentencing was committed by the defendant with drinking alcohol and contingent action, the defendant confessions the crime of this case and reflects his depth, and the victim want not want to punish the defendant, there are favorable circumstances for the defendant, the defendant has been sentenced to a fine five times from 1994 to 2002, on the other hand, there has been a history of having been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with labor, one time a suspended sentence of imprisonment with labor, two times a sentence of imprisonment with labor, and the defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that he had not been sentenced to two years after release, and that he committed the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that he was during the period of repeated crime, and that the defendant was at the risk of committing the crime of this case.