All judgment of the first instance is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1: (i) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (as to the injury of carrying dangerous articles), the Defendant committed a small radius of about 10 cm in diameter to the victim C, and thereby was fluored on the part of the victim’s entrance; (ii) however, there was no fact that there was a large contact with a large of about 30 cm in diameter, which constitutes a dangerous article, or that there was an injury as stated in the judgment by the victim; (iii) the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to “hazardous articles” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The first instance court's sentencing (the first instance court's sentencing: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and the second instance court's sentencing: 10 months) on the accused of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The sentencing of the first instance court on the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair as the prosecutor (in respect of the judgment of the first instance court, unreasonable sentencing).

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, each appeal case against the defendant against the above judgment of the court of first instance was joined in the court of first instance, and the facts constituting the crime are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence is imposed on them. Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained any more.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, whether certain goods constitute “hazardous goods” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act ought to be determined based on whether the other party or a third party may feel a risk to life or body when using the goods in light of social norms.