All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (with respect to special injuries), the Defendant collected plastic stuffs containing glass residues, and the victim was injured by breaking glass residues in stuffs. As such, the Defendant sustained injury by carrying dangerous things and carried them.

subsection (b) of this section.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine refers to the possession or wide use of dangerous articles as referred to in Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act. In the event that a person inflicts an injury on another person while carrying a dangerous object, the other party did not recognize the existence of such dangerous object, or did not directly harm his/her life or body by using such dangerous object.

Even if this crime is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do597, May 30, 1997; 2002Do5783, Jan. 24, 2003). 2), a specific judgment defendant argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in the court below. The court below rejected the above assertion in detail and convicted him of this part of the facts charged.

In light of the above legal principles, the following facts and circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., the Defendant: (i) sought to enter an open room, leading the victim's head debt; (ii) as the victim resisted against the victim, it appears that the victim had plastic boxes containing a glass balance at the end of the corridor, and the victim was faced with the right to the abstin. (ii) At the time of the instant case, there are several types of plastic boxes.