The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant's defense counsel of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles had withdrawn the existing assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles through the written opinion dated July 31, 2020 after the conclusion of the pleadings. However, this is a circumstance after the conclusion of pleadings, and thus, it should be determined including the defendant's argument of mistake of facts and misapprehension

1) The instant beer residues used by the Defendant for the instant crime does not constitute “hazardous things” under Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “1 assertion”). 2) The instant crime constitutes “political act” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “2 allegation”).

The lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion of 1) The term “hazardous goods” in the relevant legal doctrine includes all goods that can be widely used to inflict harm on human life and body even if they are not deadly weapons. Thus, not only the goods made for the purpose of killing and destroying a human body but also the knife, silver, glass bottle, various tools, automobiles, etc. made for other purposes, such as chemical drugs or dead animals, if they are used to inflict harm on human life and body (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2812, Sept. 6, 2002). Determination of whether certain goods constitute “hazardous goods” should be made depending on whether the other party or third party could cause harm to human life or body if they are used in a specific case in light of social norms.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9624, Jan. 17, 2008). Meanwhile, a confession statement that the Defendant recognized all of his/her criminal acts in the court does not have any explanation that the Defendant would be able to obtain the said confessions.