A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Seized evidence No. 1 shall be confiscated.

Punishment of the crime

On January 13, 2019, at around 11:03, the Defendant: (a) on the front of the C station located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, on the ground that the taxi driven by the victim D (the age of 68) did not yield in the course of the change of the vehicle; (b) on the front of the C station in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant launched the gap in which the victim’s vehicle was waiting for a signal signal, followed by a non-shot gun stored in the vehicle after the vehicle loaded the vehicle of the victim, sent the victim’s face one time to the victim’s face; and (c) the victim continued to get off the non-shot gun stored in the vehicle of the victim with another non-shot in the vehicle of the victim while the victim was keeping the victim’s face.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and assaulted the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Results of the verification of the total carbon amount;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on seizure, a list of seizure, a report on investigation (Attachment to a damaged part and a non-shot-shot photograph), and a report on investigation (the confirmation of a victim taxi shot-scam

1. Article 261 of the Criminal Act; Articles 261 and 260 of the Criminal Act; Selection of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion regarding the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Code of Confiscation asserts that the total amount of non-carbon as indicated in the judgment does not constitute "hazardous goods" because it has obtained safety certification

Whether a product constitutes a “hazardous product” ought to be determined depending on whether the other party or a third party could feel a danger to life or body by using the product in light of social norms in a specific case.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10256, Nov. 11, 2010). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, namely, the total non-carbon emission in the holding, are continuous non-carbon emission.