The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the escape and escape of the defendant at the time of the victim E head constitutes “hazardous goods” as provided by Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act. Thus, even though it is sufficient to find the defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective action, deadly weapon, etc.) and acquitted the defendant on this part

2. Determination of whether an article constitutes “hazardous object” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act ought to be based on whether the other party or a third party could feel any danger to the life or body of the victim when using the article in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10256, Nov. 11, 2010). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated at the lower court, namely, ① around 03:30 on Aug. 16, 2013, the Defendant 1 took a bath to the victim at the “D main store” where the victim E drinks, and, in doing so, it was difficult to view the victim’s life or body at the time of leaving the victim’s body by taking account of the fact that the victim’s head or body was considerably scattered with the victim’s disease, and thus, it is difficult to view the Defendant’s act of spreading the victim’s body as being suitable for the victim’s own purpose.