The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which dismissed the prosecution on the ground that "the defendant and the defendant agreed prior to the prosecution of this case is not dangerous goods, but the victim and the defendant committed violence against D with Aluminum aluminium, which is dangerous goods by the defendant."

2. Determination of whether a certain object constitutes a “hazardous object” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act ought to be based on whether the other party or a third party could feel a risk to life or body when using the object in light of social norms.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10256, Nov. 11, 2010). According to the aforementioned legal doctrine, if an actor assaults the other party using an instrument, the relevant instrument does not determine whether it constitutes “hazardous objects” as prescribed by Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act on the basis of objective matters, such as the material, shape, etc. of the instrument used when the actor assaultss the other party by using the instrument. The decision should be made by taking into account the circumstances in which the instrument was used, specific methods of use, damage inflicted on the other party

In light of the facts stated by the court below on the ground that the above Aluminum shot do not constitute "hazardous things", and the victim was investigated by the police and asked the police officer's question of "I have reported that I have no special relation to any damage caused by the suspect's assault," and it seems that the defendant used Aluminum shots to assault the victim, and the method of assaulting the victim was not particularly excessive, and following the case, it is acknowledged that the defendant did not have any special relation to the victim's appearance, according to the video (Evidence No. 14-17 of the Evidence Record) of the photograph taken by the victim immediately after the case, according to the victim's photograph (Evidence No. 14-17 of the Evidence).