The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

One sheet of seizure (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (no. 10 months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds of appeal is unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. As the relevant legal doctrine clearly separates a deadly weapon and dangerous object, the penal law should be strictly interpreted and applied in accordance with the language and text, and it shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the defendant.

In addition, Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act provides that the punishment of “the act of theft of another person’s property by carrying a deadly weapon is aggravated as a special larceny, taking into account the fact that the danger of harm to the victim is increased due to the carrying of a deadly weapon.”

In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that a deadly weapon as stipulated in the above Criminal Code is made for the purpose of killing or destroying the glass of a vehicle or has risks equivalent thereto. Whether it is a dangerous thing or an article with such risks should be objectively determined according to social norms in light of various circumstances, such as the original purpose, size, shape, and alteration of the article, and the method of using the article in the specific criminal process (Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4175 Decided June 14, 2012). B. In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to view that the dangerous thing is merely a dangerous thing in light of various circumstances, such as the size and shape of the stones used for destroying the vehicle glass in the course of committing the thief in this case, and the method of using it, and it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone is a dangerous weapon created for the original purpose of killing or destroying, or a dangerous weapon with the degree equivalent thereto.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the thief crime of this case constitutes a special larceny or its attempted crime as provided by Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on special larceny, or by misunderstanding the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.