The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, it cannot be deemed that the tree mons used to commit the crime of this case led to the extent to which a person was killed. In addition, the Defendant, as the co-defendant of the E school to which the victim belongs, was punished against the victim under the victim’s understanding under the direction of the supervisor A, a co-defendant, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s use of the tree mons constituted “hazardous goods” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc

B. misunderstanding of facts by a defendant and a misunderstanding of facts are the cases where either the defendant alone assaults the victim, and the defendant did not conspired with the victim, and the injury of the victim was caused by the assault by A, so the act of the victim is merely a simple assault, and the decision of the court below which recognized that the defendant conspired with A that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim is unfair. Even if the defendant is liable for the injury of the victim, the degree of contribution is extremely small, so it is not a co-principal but a crime as an aiding and abetting

(The argument in each of the above parts is a claim that was filed later than the deadline for submitting the grounds of appeal, which cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, but will be examined ex officio).

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a specific case where determining the misapprehension of the legal doctrine’s assertion constitutes “hazardous goods” as prescribed by Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the determination should be based on whether the other party or a third party could feel a risk to life or body when using the goods in question in light of social norms.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10256, Nov. 11, 2010). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, according to the following, the instant case was examined, recorded, etc., the Defendant is the cocoin of the E school to which the victim belongs.