The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the crime of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, only the Defendant had the intent to commit assault, but did not have the intent to inflict an injury on the victim, and the beer’s disease used by the Defendant in committing the crime cannot be deemed to be “a dangerous thing” as provided in the special injury crime, and thus, there is no special injury to the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

B. The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

(c)

The punishment of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is sufficient when there is a perception of assault, which is the cause of the injury, and the existence of an intention to inflict an injury is unnecessary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do4341, Jul. 4, 200; 83Do231, Mar. 22, 1983). Meanwhile, determination as to whether certain goods constitute “hazardous goods” under Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act should be made by taking into account whether the other party or the third party may cause harm to his/her life or body, in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do3421, Feb. 27, 1998; 2002Do5714, Jan. 24, 2003; 2004Do5714, Feb. 197, 200).