The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to take the hack pipe cited by the victim E, the Defendant of mistake of facts only made the victim’s face and side hump by drinking in order to take the hump pipe, and there is no fact when the victim hump by pipe.

B. Even if there is a fact that the Defendant had a hack pipe, the Defendant was at first at the time of the Defendant’s defense, which constitutes legitimate self-defense to defend the present infringement, and thus, is dismissed as it constitutes legitimate self-defense to defend the present infringement.

C. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the purpose of the Punishment of Violences Act and the purport of Article 3(1) thereof, “a person who committed the crime by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous object” under Article 3(1) of the same Act refers to a case where a person carries a deadly weapon or other dangerous object under “the intention to use” at the scene of the crime, or carries it with his body (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do401, Apr. 24, 1990; 90Do401, Apr. 24, 1990). It does not include a case where a person carries it with intention to use in the crime at the scene of the crime, regardless of all, unless the person is in possession of a dangerous object, such as a deadly weapon, or was actually used in the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Do353, Apr. 10, 198; 200Do314, Apr. 24, 20190).