The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

The lower court dismissed the prosecution on the charge of assault among the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced the remainder of the facts charged.

However, since the defendant appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment below on the grounds of improper sentencing and did not appeal both the defendant and the prosecutor with respect to the dismissal portion of the public prosecution, the dismissal portion of the judgment below becomes final and conclusive separately, and only the remaining guilty portion is subject to the judgment of this

There is no fact that the defendant misleads the defendant as to the summary of the grounds for appeal is committing a victim E by using a white plastic box containing water.

Legal principles are as follows: (a) it is difficult to pose a threat to human body by means of plastics with a light weight containing small amount of water containing misunderstanding of legal principles; and (b) it does not constitute “hazardous goods” for special crimes of injury.

The sentencing of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that the victim’s side gate is taken once and face is taken by hand in a white plastic box containing water, and that the victim was inflicted an injury requiring at least three weeks’ medical treatment due to which he/she left the bottom of the stairs.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

In a specific case, whether a certain product constitutes “a dangerous substance” should be determined depending on whether the other party or a third party could feel any danger and injury to his/her life or body when using the product in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do930, Apr. 29, 2010). Circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the white plastic box of this case.