The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The mobile phone of this case related to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is not dangerous objects, and the fact or degree that the defendant resisted against bank employees in relation to his duties does not reach the degree of interference with his duties. 2) The victim F and J related to each assault did not commit any assault, and the part of the facts charged against J is a justifiable act, and thus, the crime of assault is not established.

B. The sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that the sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (a fine of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Part 1 related to the special assault crime provides that “Dangerous Articles” includes all things that may be used to harm human life and body even if they are not deadly weapons. Thus, not only their original purpose, but also their knifes, rocks, glass bottles, various tools, automobiles, etc. made for other purposes, but also their chemical drugs or dead animals, etc. are used to harm human life and body (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2812, Sept. 6, 2002). In addition, whether certain items constitute “Dangerous Articles” under Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act should be determined based on whether the other party or third party could cause danger to human life or body when using them in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2812, Sept. 6, 200).

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(1)