The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the fact-finding of the court below as to the non-guilty portion, and it cannot be deemed unlawful as evidence cooking or fact-finding of the court below as against the rules of evidence, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to attack or possession of guns.

According to the protocol of seizure prepared by the prosecutor, it was true that the articles of theory have been seized in the manner of implied consent of the defendant 3. However, the court below held that the defendant 2 carried or possessed by the defendant 2, and that the defendant 3 could not be deemed to have carried or possessed in collusion with the defendant 2 on the ground that the above protocol of seizure could not be deemed to have been carried or possessed by the defendant 2 for the purpose of transferring the article was carried or carried by the defendant 2, and that the above protocol of seizure could not be deemed to have been carried or conspired with the defendant 3. The above protocol of seizure is just and acceptable. Accordingly, the court below's disposition is not justified.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below as to Defendant 2’s ground of appeal by Defendant 2, the court below found Defendant 2’s charges that the part of the charges against Defendant 2, in collusion with Defendant 3, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 2, which the same Defendant demanded a transfer of more than 800 entrances owned by Company A by threatening Defendant 1 among the early police officers from February 1, 191 to March 11, 191, which constituted a time when there is no proof of the crime, and found Defendant 2 not guilty, and applied Article 7 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act by recognizing that the part of the charges against Defendant 2, in collusion with Defendant 3, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 2, carried dangerous objects that may be used for the crime of violence, etc. by keeping one and three shot macks, which are dangerous objects, from March 7, 191 to March 11, 191.

However, “Carrying” of dangerous objects as referred to in Article 7 of the above Act refers to the possession of dangerous objects under the intention to use them at the scene of the crime, and the custody of them at the place where they live alone cannot be deemed as carrying dangerous objects as referred to in the above Act (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2170, Nov. 13, 1990). In the case of this case where it is not recognized that Defendant 2 attempted to attack, the fact-finding court should find Defendant 2 guilty of this part of the facts charged. In order to find Defendant 2 as guilty of this part of the facts charged, it must examine the reasons and circumstances for keeping the above objects, and what method the Defendant intended to use them at any place of the crime, and it cannot be said that the court below did not reach this point by misapprehending the legal principles as referred to in Article 7 of the above Act, and it does not constitute an unlawful act of failure or omission. Therefore, it is justified.

Therefore, the appeal by the prosecutor on the acquittal portion is dismissed, and among the judgment below, the conviction part against Defendant 2 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)