The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the facts charged in this case of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of injury, the remaining crime committed by the defendant constitutes dangerous articles under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 3,960,000) is too unjustifiable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the allegation of injury to carry dangerous articles among the facts charged of this case (1) the summary of the defendant's injury to carry dangerous articles is that the defendant carried the soft, which is a dangerous article, and carried the head cover that requires two-day medical treatment, such as the facts charged in the judgment below.

In regard to this, the court below held that, after recognizing the circumstances such as the fact that the victim attempted to commit the crime of this case, the victim's injury is not caused by the defendant, but by the defendant's injury, the defendant and the victim appear to have been faced with the cement floor as the victim did not go beyond the defendant's time, the victim was able to take full advantage of the above circumstances, and the victim was her age, and the victim was less than the defendant, it is difficult to see that the victim or the third party suffered harm to the life or body due to the use of the fright, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a dangerous object under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

(2) The question of whether a certain article constitutes a dangerous article under Article 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is the nature of the article in question.