The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant does not constitute a dangerous thing with Althanum finium cited by the Defendant at the time of the instant crime. 2) The Defendant tried to get off himself with the finite, thereby getting out of his hands, and the Defendant had no intention to inflict an injury on the Defendant, since the Defendant’s left fincrow is fincing with the victim’s eye on the alinium finch.

3) It is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the Defendant’s act and the victim’s external cerebral cerebrovassis. 4) The Defendant was aware of the victim’s fright and tried to get out of the victim’s body. As such, the Defendant’s act was a self-defense to prevent unjust infringement on one’s own life, etc., and thus, the illegality of the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense to prevent unjust infringement on one’s own life, etc.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles

A. “Dangerous articles” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act includes all articles that can be widely used to inflict harm on human life and body even if it is not a deadly weapon. Thus, not only the articles made for the original purpose of killing and destroying but also other articles made for the purpose of causing harm to human life and body shall be deemed as dangerous articles under the above provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do597, May 30, 197). Whether it constitutes “Dangerous articles” under the above provision should be determined in light of social norms in a specific case where it is specific case whether the other party or the third party may cause harm to human life or body.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2074, May 15, 2008).