The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles is in line with F's table so the Defendant was in line with the strike of a smaller soldier who gets off the F's table, and thus the Defendant did not have any special injury to the victim, and the strike of a smallerer's disease does not constitute dangerous articles.

B. The sentence that the lower court rendered unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the defendant was suffering from an injury as stated in the judgment of the court below, corresponding thereto, and the victim was sufficiently aware that the defendant was a victim, etc. in the surrounding area when the defendant was suffering from an injury as stated in the judgment of the court below.

It is recognized that there was no intention to inflict a special injury on the victim, so there was no intention to inflict a special injury on the victim.

subsection (b) of this section.

In addition, whether a certain thing constitutes a dangerous thing should be determined depending on whether the other party or a third party could feel a danger to life or body when using the thing in light of social norms. It is sufficient to view that a shoulderer’s disease constitutes it.

The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the defendant's judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing is against the defendant, and that the court below agreed with the victim.

However, considering the following factors: (a) the fact that the nature of the crime of this case, which caused the injury by the shouldering of the soldiers, was bad; (b) the age, sex, family environment of the defendant; and (c) the circumstances and results of the crime of this case and the subsequent circumstances, etc., the court below’s punishment is too too unreasonable, and thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is groundless.