The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that recognized the defendant as "a dangerous object" and found the defendant guilty of special injury by misunderstanding the legal principles, although the defendant did not constitute "a dangerous object" that could cause danger to life or body.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of legal principles as to the assertion of legal principles 1) Determination of whether certain objects of the relevant legal principles constitute “hazardous objects” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act ought to be made depending on whether the other party or a third party could cause harm to his/her life or body when using the objects in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3520, Mar. 26, 2009). This applies to “hazardous objects” of special injury under Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act. The lower court asserted that the Defendant does not constitute dangerous objects even in the lower court. (2) Determination, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that the weight of the smoke of the instant case and the method by which the Defendant used the smoke of this case, and the degree of shock that can be received in the event of being in compliance with the above weight.

The following facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below along with the circumstances revealed by the court below, namely, ① since the body weight of the defendant was about 120 km at the time of the occurrence of the instant flag, it was considerably difficult for the flag to escape of the instant flag, and ② the defendant was the victim of the instant flag.