The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's guilty of the defendant, although the defendant spreads the plaintiff's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son to the victim and did not constitute "hazardous goods" under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the Defendant’s assertion of ex officio determination, the lower court sentenced the Defendant a year and six months of imprisonment, and two years of suspension of execution. However, the statutory penalty for the crime of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.) was “limited to imprisonment for a limited term of at least three years,” and the lower court sentenced the Defendant, who did not have any legal ground for mitigation, sentenced the Defendant to a sentence that deviates from the scope of the applicable sentence without omission of the sentence. In this regard, the lower court became unable to maintain further.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. In a specific case where the determination of the misapprehension of legal principles constitutes “hazardous goods” as prescribed by Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the determination should be made depending on whether the other party or a third party could feel any danger to life or body when using the goods in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10256, Nov. 11, 2010). Considering that the so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called