The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Poter II cargo vehicle recorded in the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “instant cargo vehicle”) cannot be deemed as “hazardous goods” under Article 144(1) of the Criminal Act, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the charge of obstruction of performance of special duties and damage to special public goods among the facts of the instant case, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to dangerous goods, which affected the conclusion of

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a specific case where the determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle constitutes “hazardous goods” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the determination shall be made by whether the other party or a third party could cause danger to human life or body when using the goods in light of social norms. An automobile is not originally made for the purpose of killing or destroying, but is used for causing harm to human life or body, or destroying another person’s property, it constitutes “hazardous goods” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5783, Jan. 24, 2003). In a special obstruction of public duty under Article 144 of the Criminal Act, “Dangerous goods” includes all goods that may cause harm to human life and body, and thus, “any goods that were widely used for the purpose of killing and destroying as well as any goods that were widely used for the purpose of causing harm to human life and body,” and “any goods that were widely used by animals, tools, etc.” as well.