The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which did not constitute “hazardous objects” to which the Defendant left the victim.

In addition, the defendant was provided with the garment at the restaurant, and was left by the defendant. As such, the defendant carried the garment at the restaurant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to special injury, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine refers to a case where a dangerous weapon or other dangerous object is possessed or carried in body under the intent to be used at the scene of the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5783, Jan. 24, 2003) with the intent to use it at the scene of the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do914, Mar. 30, 2007). The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the defendant her use of a dangerous object by carrying approximately 30 cm in width, about 8.5 cm in height, and about 8.5 cm in the above restaurant, and the defendant's use of the dangerous object by carrying it to the victim is difficult for the victim to commit the crime, and in light of the above legal principles, the victim was able to have been dead at the time of the crime.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.