The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The charge of special injury (the fact-finding) 1) Defendant does not constitute a dangerous object. 2) The Defendant only obstructed the victim C by a wood autopsy in order to prevent the victim C from escape before the police arrives, and there was no fact that the victim C was able to leave the victim C 4 times by using a wood autopsy and 3 times buckbucks.

3) The injured party C’s superior position is extremely minor and does not constitute injury under the Criminal Act as it does not interfere with natural therapy and daily life. (b) In order to protect the Defendant by threatening the Defendant, the injured party G was placed at one time in the victim G’s adjacent bucks and bucks, and the injured party G was placed at the victim’s cell phone in order to escape from the threat by threatening the Defendant’s bucking, after the Defendant’s bucking, the Defendant’s act is not unlawful. C. The lower court’s punishment of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and one year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts as to the charge of special injury 1) Whether the instant wooden inspection constitutes “hazardous goods” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act ought to be based on whether, in light of social norms, the other party or a third party may cause danger to his/her life or body if using the goods in question in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3520, Mar. 26, 2009). This is likewise applicable to “hazardous goods” in the crime of special injury under Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, that is, the wood inspection of this case is composed of trees and about 76cc in length, and the defendant is the above wood inspection.