폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등협박)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The misunderstanding of the facts reveals that “the Defendant: (a) reported that the witness was a gas station; (b) re-entered the Defendant’s house with the Defendant’s “this satisfying; (c) took two motivations; and (d) took the witness; and (c) talked as described in the facts charged at a distance of about 50cc to 1m; and (d) took the same sense as the facts charged; and (c) citing the improvement, embling the victim’s legal statement in the lower court; and (d) the victim’s statement in the lower court; and (e) the victim’s police statement and the blade length of the improvement.” In light of the social norms, the instant improvement ought to be deemed to constitute dangerous things that may cause harm to the other party or a third party’s life or body, if using the product.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (a sum of three million won, confiscation) is too uneased and unfair.
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor examined the case in question, and the crime of Article 2 of the indictment of this case from "Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc.)" to "special intimidation", and the applicable provision of the law to "Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act" to "Article 284 and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act," respectively, was changed to "Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act," and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in this respect.
B. Even if the judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of fact has such reasons as above, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of fact is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this case's evidence is examined in detail in light of the records, the court below does not constitute a dangerous article for reasons as stated in its holding.