The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although it is recognized that the defendant, by misunderstanding the legal principles, has taken the left side part of the victim's electronic cigarette once, he can not be said to be dangerous objects of the above electronic tobacco.

B. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had no or weak ability to discern things and make decisions.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion of facts. “Dangerous articles” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act includes all things that can be widely used to harm human life and body even if they are not deadly weapons. As such, not only those made for the purpose of killing and damaging human body, but also those made for other purposes, if they are used to harm human life and body, it refers to “hazardous articles” under the above provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do597, May 30, 197). Whether it constitutes “Dangerous articles” under the above provision should be determined by whether the other party or the third party may cause harm to human life or body, in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2074, May 15, 2008). Thus, the lower court’s determination of whether it constitutes “Dangerous articles” under the above provision should be made by lawfully adopting tobacco from the victim’s body thickness or evidence.