The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a case where a misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (related to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitually, Deadly, etc., Destruction and Damage) in the original judgment) was used to shoulder the restaurant entrance favorable to the defendant, the gate itself is not a dangerous object, nor is it a dangerous object in the method or method of use.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual collectives, deadly weapons, etc.) by deeming that the above bricks used by the Defendant to commit the crime of causing property damage to this part, and found the Defendant guilty of the charges. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “hazardous objects” in the crime of causing damage to a deadly weapon, etc. (Habitual collectives, deadly weapons, etc.) and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle as to a dangerous article under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act shall be based on whether the other party or a third party could feel a danger to life or body when using the article in light of social norms in a specific case. Even if the other party did not recognize the existence of the dangerous article if the article was damaged by carrying a dangerous article, or the other party did not use the dangerous article to cause harm to life or body, the crime of violation of Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5783, Jan. 24, 2003). In full view of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the defendant is a food restaurant operated by ordinary citizens.