The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-finding and misunderstanding of the legal principles that the defendant intentionally affected the victims, not intentionally led the beer's disease, but the beer's disease was boomed with the influence of alcohol, and the beer's disease was merely a day to the victims, and even if the victims of beer's disease were faced with, it is not a match with a specific person; the victims were not at the risk of injury; and the beer's disease was not at the risk of harm under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, it shall be deemed that the above beer's disease does not constitute a dangerous object.

In addition, since victim E is only twice the face of food, it constitutes a simple assault unrelated to carrying dangerous objects. Since the above victim expressed his/her intention that he/she does not want to punish the defendant, it is necessary to dismiss the prosecution against this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the testimony of the witness I of the party trial, the court below may fully recognize the fact that the defendant had been suffering from beer and sick with the intention of dolusence, as stated in the judgment of the court below. 2) On the other hand, whether certain goods constitute “hazardous goods” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act should be determined by whether the other party or the third party could cause danger to life or body if using the goods in light of social norms in specific cases (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10256, Nov. 11, 2010). When using the de facto beer disease, the other party or the third party could cause danger to death.