The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles of misunderstanding [Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)] the interpretation of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and the principle of accountability and the principle of accountability, the instant car does not constitute “hazardous things” in view of the method by which the Defendant used a vehicle for each of the instant crimes and the consequences therefrom.

In addition, even if the victims did not receive treatment, it is limited to the extent that the victims can naturally recover according to the south of Korea, and it does not constitute "injury" under the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of this part of the charges is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. Before determining the reasoning of the Defendant’s appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds of the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied the name of the crime to “special injury” as “violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)” under Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act “Article 258-2(1) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act” in “Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257(1) of the same Act,” and the lower court’s judgment was no longer maintained as the subject of the judgment was changed by permitting it.

However, the argument of misunderstanding the legal principles of the defendant and his defense counsel is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined as follows.

B. Determination 1 as to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles ought to be based on whether the other party or the third party could feel a risk to life or body when using the goods in light of social norms in a specific case (see Supreme Court Decision 2008.17, Jan. 17, 2008)