The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not carry a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Whether a misunderstanding of the legal doctrine constitutes “hazardous goods” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act should be determined based on whether the other party or a third party could feel a danger to life or body when using the goods in light of social norms.

(Supreme Court Decision 2004Do176 delivered on May 14, 2004). Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant could recognize the fact that the defendant was faced with the beer and neck, which became favorable to the victim, and that its residues were broken away in accordance with the cold cooling door, and that the victim was faced with the victim’s wife. Thus, it is deemed that the victim could have caused a danger to his own life or body by the aforementioned neck.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of the instant case of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.