The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

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

except that this judgment.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal is clear that the defendant's substitute trees sent to the victim A and B may inflict harm on human life and body, it constitutes dangerous goods under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the court below did not recognize it, which erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles on dangerous goods, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act includes all articles that can be widely used to inflict harm on human life and body even if they are not a deadly weapon. As such, not only a knife, paper, glass bottle, various tools, vehicles, etc. made for other purposes, but also a chemical drug or a dead animal, etc., if they were used to inflict harm on human life and body (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2812, Sept. 6, 2002). The issue of whether a product constitutes a "hazardous product" under the above provision should be determined depending on whether the other party or a third party could cause harm to human life or body when using the product in light of social norms in specific cases.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do2074 Decided May 15, 2008 and Supreme Court Decision 2014Do1894 Decided June 12, 2014, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Do1894, Jun. 12,

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the length of the substitute tree used by the defendant is 140cm and its diameter is 4cm, ② the defendant is not a dangerous object because it was bruised, but there is a possibility that the defendant would suffer more severe injury on the part of the main of the victim A with large trees, ③ the victim A is 2 feet.