The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be 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 lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds that the smartphone, which the Defendant had committed, does not constitute dangerous goods. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine ought to be based on whether, in a specific case, a certain object of the relevant legal doctrine constitutes “hazardous object” as prescribed by Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act, in light of social norms, the other party or third party could cause harm to his/her life or body (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10256, Nov. 11, 2010). 2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the lower court, namely, smartphone was not created for the purpose of killing or destroying its original, but can be used for the purpose of causing harm to a person’s body, depending on the method of using the cellphone. In light of the fact that a smartphone was intentionally used for the purpose of causing harm to the person’s body, and the victim’s physical injury or physical injury caused by the Defendant’s act of causing harm to the victim’s body, etc. under Article 25 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below with the above conclusion is just and there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing.