The appeal is dismissed.

Article 3(1) and (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which applies to the law of the first instance court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below was just in finding the Defendant guilty of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury or injury by a deadly weapon, etc.) on May 7, 2012 among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on "hazardous goods" under Article 3

In addition, the argument that the court below erred in infringing on the basic contents of the principle of balance of crime and the principle of responsibility in sentencing against the defendant is ultimately an assertion of unfair sentencing. According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where the court rendered a more minor sentence against the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Of the application of the first instance judgment, Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act (the act of intimidation with a deadly weapon) are clearly erroneous in the scope of “Article 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act”. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.