The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. The sentence of the lower court to the accused (three years and six months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination of this case’s charged of special robbery is made ex officio.

The Criminal Act clearly separates a deadly weapon and dangerous object from a deadly weapon, so criminal laws shall be strictly interpreted and applied in accordance with the language and text, and they shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the defendant.

In addition, Articles 331(2) and 331(2) of the Criminal Act (special larceny) (2) of the same Act shall apply to a person who steals another's property, carrying a lethal weapon or jointly with more than two persons.

The aggravated punishment of “the act of theft of another person’s property by carrying a deadly weapon may be deemed to have taken into account the fact that the personal belongings of a deadly weapon increases the risk of danger to the victim, etc.

In light of the above, it is reasonable to view that a deadly weapon as stipulated in the above Criminal Code is made for the purpose of killing or destroying a deadly weapon, or has any risk equivalent thereto. Whether it constitutes a dangerous article or an article with such risk should be objectively determined according to social norms in light of all the circumstances, such as its original purpose, size and shape, alteration, and method of using the article in the specific criminal process.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4175, Jun. 14, 2012). Meanwhile, such a legal doctrine is applicable to a special robbery by carrying a deadly weapon (Article 334(2) and Article 334(2) of the Criminal Act (special robbery). The same applies to a person who commits a crime under the preceding Article in carrying a deadly weapon or jointly with at least two persons.).

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, although the defendant's head was found to have taken once the victim's head from his substitute seat, the above substitute lighting is not more than 13 cm wide and 9 cm long.