The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal doctrine is that the tree huge amount carried by the Defendant when the Defendant was at the time of the victim does not constitute “hazardous objects” under Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act, and the Defendant is not a special injury but a crime of injury.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. Whether certain goods constitute "hazardous goods" under Article 3 (1) of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016), should be determined depending on whether the other party or third party could cause harm to his/her life or body when using the goods in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do3421, Feb. 27, 1998; 2002Do2812, Sept. 6, 2002; 2002Do5783, Jan. 24, 2003; 2004Do176, May 14, 2004). The lower court duly adopted the evidence that the victim suffered from enormous harm on both sides of the Defendant and the victim, who had no knowledge of the fact that the victim suffered from enormous harm on the left side of the tree, and the victim was unable to obtain permission to do so from the victim on the same day.