The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the vehicles operated by the defendant by misunderstanding legal principles do not constitute "hazardous goods" under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the dismissal of prosecution against the defendant who agreed with the victim should be sentenced in the court below.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment with labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion of facts. Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act includes all things that can be widely used to harm human life and body even if they are not deadly weapons. Thus, not only those made for the purpose of killing or destroying human body but also those made for other purposes, if they are used to harm human life and body, the "hazardous things" under the above provision. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do597, May 30, 197) Whether the "hazardous things" under the above provision is "hazardous things" should be determined by whether the other party or third party could cause harm to human life or body if they were used in light of social norms in a specific case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2074, May 15, 2008). Thus, the defendant continued to proceed with the fourth lane of the vehicle under the evidence duly adopted by the court below, and the defendant continued to proceed with the fourth lane of the vehicle in question.