The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on the premise that the tree stick is a dangerous article, even though the tree stick used by the Defendant does not constitute a dangerous article, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the term “hazardous goods” which are the constituent elements of the crime of special injury under Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act includes all things that can be widely used to inflict harm on human life and body even if they are not deadly weapons. Thus, not only those made for the purpose of destruction of life and body but also those made for other purposes constitutes “hazardous goods” if they are used to inflict harm on human life and body.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the part of the tree stick used by the Defendant at the time of the commission of the crime is deemed to be in danger of bodily harm. In light of the above legal principles, the part of the tree stick used by the Defendant at the time of the victim is deemed to have been in danger of bodily harm. In addition, considering the situation at the time of the commission of the crime, such as the following: (a) the part of the tree stick used by the Defendant at the time of the victim was in danger of special injury; and (b) the part of the victim’s bridge with the above tree stick was carried out by the Defendant at the time of the commission of the crime; and (c) the part of the victim’s bridge, etc. at the time of the crime, the part of the tree stick used by the Defendant for the crime of this case constitutes dangerous objects of special injury; and (d) the Defendant

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and the judgment below did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged above.

B. In full view of the grounds for sentencing stated in the instant argument and the record, the lower court’s judgment on the allegation of unfair sentencing.