The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (1) The defendant was only flick part of the victim D's head and shoulder, and did not take the victim's head due to the chemical powder like the crime at the time of original adjudication (hereinafter "the chemical powder of this case"). (2) The chemical powder of this case does not correspond to "the dangerous articles under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act," and the defendant did not have any intention to assault the victim with dangerous articles, and (3) the defendant did not violate social rules, and (4) the defendant did not have any awareness of illegality at the time of committing the crime of this case, and (5) the crime of attacking carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles among the crimes of violation of Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is subject to victim's complaint, compared with the crime of assault of this case and other dangerous articles, the provisions of punishment against intention of violation of Article 260 (3) of the Criminal Act should be applied to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

2. Determination

가. 피해자의 머리를 내리친 사실이 없다는 주장에 대한 판단 원심이 적법하게 채택한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉 ① 피해자는 경찰에서 “피고인이 C주점 카운터 위에 올려져 있던 화분을 손에 들고 저를 향해 내리쳐 저의 왼쪽 어깨 부분이 맞았고, 화분은 그대로 땅에 떨어져 깨져버렸다”는 취지로 진술한 점(피해자는 원심 및 당심에서는 “피고인이 화분을 툭 밀었는데 우연히 피해자의 어깨에 맞았다“는 취지로 진술하였다), ② 이 사건 범행의 목격자인 E은 경찰 및 원심에서 “피고인이 화분을 들고 피해자의 머리를 때리는 것을 목격했다”, "피고인이 화분을 들고 위에서 아래로 내리치는 것으로...