The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the so-called “hazardous object” as provided by the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (hereinafter “Exposure Act”) is not a “hazardous object.”

B. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

C. The sentencing of the first instance court of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, whether certain goods constitute “hazardous goods” under Article 3(1) of the Exposure Act ought to be determined depending on whether the other party or a third party could feel a risk to life or body when using the goods in light of social norms.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5146 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.). In light of the circumstances and circumstances of the instant case, and the degree of damage to the victim, it is recognized that soldiers carried by the Defendant are objects that may cause harm to the victim or a third party by social norms.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court as to the assertion of mental disorder, it is recognized that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, but in light of the content of the crime of this case and the behavior of the defendant before and after the crime of this case, and the statement attitude after the arrest of the defendant, etc., it seems that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, and thus, it is difficult to view that

C. As to the assertion of unreasonable sentencing, in light of the background leading up to the Defendant in this case, the content of the crime, the method and attitude of the crime, etc., the nature of the crime, multiple theft offenses against the Defendant, and the Defendant repeated crimes.