The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principle that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim by using Aluminum pipes, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principle that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although the above pipe cannot be viewed as a dangerous object under the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

B. The sentence of one year and six months of imprisonment imposed by the lower court, and the sentence of two years of suspended execution, which is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion of legal principles is based on whether certain goods constitute “hazardous goods” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act in a specific case ought to be determined by whether the other party or a third party could have caused harm to his/her life or body when using the goods in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10256, Nov. 11, 2010). 2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① Aluminum pipe, which the Defendant used at the time, appears to be sufficient to inflict harm on the life or body of people in light of 1m30 cm in length, diameter, 3 cm in diameter, and the length and material of the pipe (the 7th page of the investigation record, victim’s assertion that the above pipe was about 60 cm in length, but the victim did not appear to have any particular difference in the victim’s right injury in the process.