The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, the instantless electricity does not constitute “hazardous goods” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

B. The Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is against one’s own mistake in depth and is against it.

Although the defendant tried to reach an agreement, the court below deposited 1.5 million won for the victim because the victim did not want to reach an agreement.

The defendant has no record of criminal punishment and has lived faithfully at the construction site.

There are considerable responsibility for the occurrence of crimes even for the victims who caused multi-party dispute to the defendant.

The defendant supports the mother and wife in Korea.

If a defendant is sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment, the defendant shall be forced to leave the place of immigration office by refusal to extend his/her stay.

In full view of these circumstances, the sentence imposed by the court below (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the judgment, and the prosecutor filed an application for changes in indictment with the contents that the name of the crime in the indictment was changed from "the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury with deadly weapons, etc.)" to "special injury", and the applicable provisions of the law are changed to "Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act" and "Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act", and the court permitted this to change to "Articles 258-2(1) and 257(1) of the Criminal Act". As such, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

B. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to what kind of goods constitutes “hazardous goods” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is generally accepted in a specific case.