The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The judgment of the court below on the scope of the trial in this case dismissed the prosecution on the assault against the victim C and D among the facts charged in this case, and sentenced the remaining facts charged guilty.

However, since the Defendant filed an appeal only against the conviction except the dismissal part of the above indictment, the dismissal part of the indictment was separated and finalized as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction among the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal doctrine, the Defendant’s special assault was sucked once with the victim L by singing, and cannot be deemed as a dangerous thing in light of the details and circumstances of the crime.

Nevertheless, the court below, however, abused L by the defendant in microfa, a dangerous object.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. On August 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 02:00 on August 10, 2015, entered a “M” singing room operated by the victim L (n, 45 years of age) who was in the Busan Dong-gu, Busan; and (b) ordered other customers to take a bath while drinking alcohol; (c) the Defendant spacing the performance, such as drinking expenses, etc.; and (d) the victim spaced the customer; and (c) the victim spaced the customer.

In other words, the victim assaulted the victim's bucks one time in microbucks, which is a dangerous object for the victim's disregarding himself.

B. Determination 1) Whether a certain thing constitutes a “hazardous thing” under Article 261 of the Criminal Act ought to be determined based on whether the other party or a third party could feel a risk to life or body when using the thing in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9624, Jan. 17, 2008).