The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the court below convicted the victim of the facts charged in this case even though the defendant, which was a dangerous object against the victim by mistake of facts, did not cause an injury to the victim, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant case, the lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the case of Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the term “hazardous articles” includes all articles that can be widely used to harm people’s life and body even if they are not deadly weapons. Thus, whether they constitute a dangerous article should be determined depending on whether the other party or a third party could cause harm to people’s life or body when using the articles in light of social norms in a specific case, and the term “on hand” includes not only possession but also widely used.

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the instant case, the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim by using the electric stove, a dangerous article, can be sufficiently recognized.

① The victim consistently stated in the lower court and the first instance court as to the circumstances in which he suffered an injury, that the Defendant had a sound required for the electric stoves, and that the electric stoves had a stoves in response to the victim’s direction towards the victim. In light of the aforementioned statements, the Defendant appears to have intentionally engaged in electric stoves toward the victim.

If there is a change in the defendant's office, the defendant's floor towards the floor.