The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act does not apply to dangerous things used by the defendant for misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the 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 shall be determined based on 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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do4146, Nov. 9, 199); and even if the other party did not recognize the existence of the dangerous goods if the goods are damaged to another person’s property while carrying a dangerous object, or the use of the dangerous goods would not cause harm to his/her life or body, the crime of violation of Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is established.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5783 Decided January 24, 2003, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, considering the size, shape, method of use, and location and degree of damaged glass windows, etc., the use of the goods by social norms can lead to the risk of life or body of the other party or the third party. Thus, it constitutes "hazardous goods" under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. There is also an unfavorable factor in sentencing, such as the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of suspension of execution.

However, the defendant's act of damage is recognized and reflected in his criminal act, and the defendant's act of damage is a dangerous thing.