A. The Defendant’s ice pain is not a dangerous object.

B. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the Defendant also made such assertion in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the said assertion under the title “determination on the Defendant B’s assertion”.

The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant (the defendant is about 530 grams of the ice of this case and is not dangerous as plastic material.

However, the instant ice can not be seen as a simple weight depending on the method of displaying the weight of 530g, referred to by the Defendant, even when it appears that the thickness is fast and short, and therefore, it seems that the physical harm may be inflicted on a person according to the method of use. The victim actually suffered two grams of the instant ice in line with the instant ice tank.

In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to view the above goods as objects that may cause harm to the body of the other party. (b) Determination of the sentencing was agreed upon with the victim regarding the wrongful assertion of sentencing and taking into account the motive leading to the instant crime; however, the Defendant again committed the instant crime even during the period of repeated crime, and thus, even during the period of repeated crime, the Defendant again committed the instant crime. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s sentence that sentenced the maximum sentence that reduced the amount of punishment applied to this case is too unreasonable.

3. The appeal by the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.