The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles (i.e., that the defendant had a victim, does not constitute "hazardous objects" as gravel for landscaping under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

The crime of violence under the Criminal Code and the crime of violence under the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) are in a special relationship, which is a type of legal concurrence agreement.

Therefore, in this case, the crime of assault is excluded by the application of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act, and further, the crime of assault is not committed as a result of a fundamental crime.

B. The defendant with mental disorder committed the instant crime in a state where he was committed.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In a criminal trial on a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the burden of proof for the facts charged exists with the prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt ought to be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so if there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

Meanwhile, in a specific case, whether a certain thing constitutes a “hazardous thing” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act ought to be determined depending on whether the other party or a third party could feel a danger to life or body when using the thing in light of social norms.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3520, Mar. 26, 2009). In this case, the victim said that “the defendant was 3 in the direction of the park.” The victim is not aware of the size of the stones because the victim was the defendant, etc., and the victim was in flight, and the escape was the same as that of the wave.”