The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the prosecutor’s appeal (legal scenario) is that the instant empty beer’s disease and hackers, which the Defendant was collected, constitute “hazardous things” as prescribed by Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby rendering a judgment as a simple assault of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively weapon, etc.) among the facts charged

2. In a specific case where a certain piece of article on a board constitutes “hazardous article” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the determination should be based on whether the other party or a third party could feel a danger to life or body when using the article in question in light of social norms

(2) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances are as follows. ① The Defendant was using the instant empty beer disease at a place less than one meter away from the victim, and the instant beer plate was located at a place less than three meters away from the victim. Considering the fact that the Defendant was unable to find that the Defendant was able to boom the victim, and that it was difficult to conclude that the Defendant was booming on the victim, and that the Defendant was booming on the part of the victim; ② In light of the fact that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of this case and the beer disease on November 11, 2010, and that the Defendant was not under the influence of the disease and the disease on March 26, 2009, the Defendant was not under the influence of the disease and the disease on the part of the victim on the part of the victim on the part of the victim on the part of the Defendant.