The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the situation at the time, the Defendant committed an act threatening the victim by citing the victim as an empty spawn in the face of the arrival of the police officer. However, in light of the situation at the time, the disease of the Defendant does not constitute a dangerous thing.

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

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, “hazardous articles” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act includes all articles that can be widely used to inflict harm on human life and body, even if they are not deadly weapons. As such, not only those made for the purpose of killing and destroying, but also those made for other purposes, if they are used to inflict harm on human life and body (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do597, May 30, 1997). Whether they constitute “hazardous articles” under the above provision should be determined by whether the other party or third party would cause harm to human life or body in light of social norms in a specific case.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2074 Decided May 15, 2008, etc.). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court of the trial and the court below, the Defendant stated to the effect that the victim, who was seated in the table table table of a restaurant, Daced the victim, Dacing the victim into his/her own sloping and going against the victim, and Doing him/her to the victim. ② The victim reported the Defendant’s behavior and her behavior, ③ the victim’s head may be sufficiently injured if he/she finds the Defendant’s head, and the other party may cause danger to his/her life or body.