The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have the intention of assaulting the Defendant merely because he had sufficient time for the victims to avoid the vehicle with the knowledge that the victims would have prevented their own vehicles.

B. As above, in light of the legal principles, since the defendant operated a vehicle in a tent while giving time to avoid victims, it cannot be said that the vehicle driven by the defendant is a "hazardous object" as provided by the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of assault in a judgment of mistake of facts, the crime of assault means the exercise of physical tangible power against a human body, and it does not necessarily require any contact with the victim’s body.

(Supreme Court Decision 89Do1406 delivered on February 13, 1990). The defendant's act is acknowledged as having committed a crime of assault by exercising physical tangible power on the body of the victims even though the victims did not directly contact the victims. Thus, as long as the victims were aware at the time of the instant case that the victims had attempted to avoid the vehicle, it cannot be said that there was no intention of assault against the defendant even if the victims anticipated to avoid the vehicle by themselves.

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

B. Whether certain goods to be determined as to the assertion of legal principles constitute “hazardous goods” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is in light of social norms in a specific case.