The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the determination.

As the Criminal Act clearly separates a deadly weapon and dangerous object, the penal laws and regulations shall be strictly interpreted and applied in accordance with the language and text, and they shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the defendant.

In addition, Article 334(2) of the Criminal Act provides that the punishment of “a person who forcibly takes another’s property by carrying a deadly weapon shall be aggravated as a special robbery by taking into account the fact that the risk of harm to the victim, etc. is increased due to the carrying of a deadly weapon.”

In light of the above, it is reasonable to view that a deadly weapon as stipulated under the provisions of the Criminal Act is made for the purpose of destruction for the original purpose of murder or that there exists a risk equivalent thereto. Whether it constitutes an article with such a risk should be objectively determined in accordance with the social norms in light of all the circumstances, such as the original purpose, size, shape, and alteration of the article, and the method of using the article in the specific criminal process (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4175, Jun. 14, 2012). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant threatened the Defendant of a brut disease, but it is not deemed that the brut disease was made for the purpose of destruction for the original purpose of murder, and it does not constitute an article with a risk equivalent thereto.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s crime of this case constitutes a case of forcibly taking another’s property by carrying a lethal weapon with him, and even if there is no proof of criminal facts, the instant facts charged constitutes a crime of special robbery as prescribed in Articles 334(2) and (1) and 333 of the Criminal Act.