The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-finding and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the destruction and damage of group, deadly weapons, etc.) by the Defendant (hereinafter “cement of this case”), even though it does not constitute “hazardous objects” as prescribed by the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the lower court recognized it as dangerous objects and convicted the Defendant of this part of the crime. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part concerning the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.).

B. Even if the part of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. of this case (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.) is found guilty, the sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment with prison labor, four years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order) 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 ought to be determined based on whether the other party or a third party could feel a risk to life or body when using the goods in light of social norms.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 81Do1046 delivered on July 28, 1981, and 2007Do3520 delivered on March 26, 2009, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, according to various evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, even if the size and shape of the cement of this case are assessed as 30 cm wide and 30 cm long, it is deemed that the victim or a third party constitutes a dangerous object that could cause danger to life or body by social norms, and ②.