The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

The summary of the facts charged is that the defendant is a daily worker and is a married couple C (n, 41 years of age) and a married couple on April 21, 2013.

On March 6, 2016, at around 21:10 on March 6, 2016, the Defendant assaulted the victim's shoulder and satis in a dangerous product by cutting the left head of the victim's body two times with a solid solid thing in the kitchen, while having been in dispute with the victim and his wife.

The defendant continued to run away from the house, resulting in the victim's walking away from the direction of the victim, and led the victim to go beyond the next stairs.

As a result, the Defendant, while carrying a friendly product, committed violence to the victim.

Maz.

1. Whether certain objects of the relevant legal doctrine constitute “hazardous objects” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act ought to be determined based on whether the other party or a third party could feel a risk to life or body when using the objects in light of social norms.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do930 Decided April 29, 2010, etc.). 2. Specific determination

A. The victim 1 stated in the investigative agency and this court to the effect that the defendant assaulted the victim with such a longer tension as Pakistan, while the defendant asserts to the effect that the use of the victim at the time of assault was about 40 cm in length.

The victim, at the time of the instant case, was assaulted by the Defendant several times from the Defendant, and was in a state without a yellow condition, and the statement prepared by the victim by the investigative agency, appears to be a clerical error in the “price” and “price” on several occasions, both the left-hand title and head of the drinking and Dousan (the Defendant).

On the other hand, at the time of being investigated as a witness by an investigative agency, "the driver has laid down the knife and walked down the knife."