The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, although the defendant could not be deemed to have inflicted an injury by carrying dangerous articles.

The Defendant alleged mental disorder was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and was in a state of mental disability.

The sentence of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) against the defendant claiming unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Whether certain goods to be determined on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles constitute “hazardous goods” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act should be determined by whether the other party or a third party could feel a danger to life or body when using the goods in light of social norms.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9624 Decided January 17, 2008). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in this case, it is reasonable to view that the victim or the third party could have caused danger to the life or body of the victim in light of these facts. The court below determined that the victim or the third party could have caused danger to the victim's life or body.

Therefore, the lower court was justifiable to have convicted of the facts charged of this case.

The defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental disorder, the Defendant is deemed to have served alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, but on the other hand, the background and method of committing the crime, and the Defendant’s specific behavior attitude before and after committing the crime.