The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not constitute “hazardous objects” as provided in the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to dangerous objects, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to dangerous objects.

2. In Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, "hazardous articles" includes all articles that can be widely used to harm human life and body even though they are not deadly weapons. Thus, the phrase "hazardous articles" includes not only the articles made for the purpose of killing and destroying people, but also the knife, knife, glass bottle, various tools, vehicles, etc. made for other purposes, such as the knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, various tools, vehicles, etc., as well as the knife, knife and knife, etc., which are used to harm human life and body.

(see Supreme Court Decision 97Do597, May 30, 1997). In addition, in a specific case, whether a certain thing constitutes “hazardous thing” as prescribed by the said legal provision ought to be determined depending on whether the other party or a third party could cause danger to life or body by using the thing in light of social norms in a specific case.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10256 Decided November 11, 2010). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the health team, the lower court, and the lower court as to the instant case, namely, the tools used to cut the wire materials, such as electric wires or ironworks, and are used to cut the wire materials. As such, even if the length of the parter used to commit the instant crime is about 10cm, the method of use is followed.